Role of insular cortex lesions in determining the pathogenetic subtype of ischemic stroke

Timely evaluation of cardioembolic stroke (CES) caused by atrial fibrillation is critical from the point of view of the possibility of prescribing effective secondary prevention with oral anticoagulants. Insular lesion is considered as a promising neuroimaging marker of CES.

Objective: to analyze the role of insular cortex lesions using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain as a potential neuroimaging marker of the pathogenetic subtype of ischemic stroke (IS).

Patients and methods. 225 patients in the acute period of IS were examined. Depending on the stroke etiology, patients were divided into three groups: cryptogenic stroke (CS; n=99), CES (n=45), and non-CES (n=81). All patients underwent an MRI of the brain to analyze the insular cortex lesions. In 57 patients, foci of cerebral infarction were additionally marked manually on axial slices of diffusion-weighted MRI using the Anatomist software. The calculated MRI characteristics of foci for CES and non-CES groups were used to construct a decision tree in the WEKA 3.6 package. Echocardiographic markers of atrial cardiopathy were assessed in all patients – the left atrium (LA) emptying fraction and LA function index; in 68 patients, the concentration of serum NT-proBNP was also assessed.

Results and discussion. The insula was affected in 12% of patients: most often in CES (33%), significantly less often in CS and non-CES (6 and 7.4%, respectively), without significant differences between the latter groups. The presence of insula lesion in relation to CES has a sensitivity of 33% and a specificity of 93% (p=0.002); odds ratio 6.25; 95% confidence interval 2.22–17.63. In most patients, the posterior insular cortex was involved in the pathological process. Isolated insular infarction occurred in only one patient with CES, while the involvement of the insula and adjacent zone, and the combination of insular infarction with territorial infarction, were observed more often. The group of patients with insular lesions was distinguished by the predominance of women, greater severity of stroke at admission, less deficit at discharge, larger LA diameter, lower LA emptying fraction, and functional index. CES was four times more common in the insular lesion group, while CS was two times more common in those without insular lesions. Insula involvement identifies three out of five CES patients according to the decision tree. Further analysis of the total lesion volume can locate almost all remaining patients with CES: they are characterized by the indicator >12 sm3.

Conclusion. Insular lesions allow reliable differentiation of patients with CES and non-CES and can be considered a potential marker of the cardioembolic subtype of IS, which requires further investigation.

1. Diener HC, Hankey GJ. Primary and Secondary Prevention of Ischemic Stroke and Cerebral Hemorrhage: JACC Focus Seminar. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Apr 21;75(15):1804-18. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.12.072

2. Ntaios G. Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Jan 28;75(3):333-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.11.024

3. Hart RG, Diener HC, Coutts SB, et al; Cryptogenic Stroke/ESUS International Working Group. Embolic strokes of undetermined source: the case for a new clinical construct. Lancet Neurol. 2014 Apr;13(4):429-38. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70310-7

4. Mekhryakov SA, Kulesh AA, Syromyatnikova LI, Sobyanin KV. Biomarkers of atrial cardiopathy in patients with different pathogenetic subtypes of ischemic stroke. Nevrologiya, neiropsikhiatriya, psikhosomatika = Neurology, Neuropsychiatry, Psychosomatics. 2020;12(6):33-41. doi: 10.14412/2074-2711-2020-6-33-41 (In Russ.).

5. Kang J, Hong JH, Jang MU, et al. Cardioembolism and Involvement of the Insular Cortex in Patients with Ischemic Stroke. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 21;10(10):e0139540. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139540. eCollection 2015.

6. Sargento L, Vicente Simoes A, Longo S, et al. Left atrial function index predicts longterm survival in stable outpatients with systolic heart failure. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017 Feb;18(2):119-27. doi: 10.1093/ehjci/jew196. Epub 2016 Sep 27.

7. Riviere D, Geffroy D, Denghien I, et al. Anatomist: a python framework for interactive 3D visualization of neuroimaging data. In: Python in Neuroscience workshop; 2011.

8. Garyfallidis E, Brett M, Amirbekian B, et al; Dipy Contributors. Dipy, a library for the analysis of diffusion MRI data. Front Neuroinform. 2014 Feb 21;8:8. doi: 10.3389/fninf.2014.00008. eCollection 2014.

9. Fonov VS, Evans AC, McKinstry RC, et al. Unbiased nonlinear average age-appropriate brain templates from birth to adulthood. NeuroImage. 2009;47(1):102.

10. Pustina D, Avants B, Faseyitan OK, et al. Improved accuracy of lesion to symptom mapping with multivariate sparse canonical correlations. Neuropsychologia. 2018 Jul 1;115:154-66. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.08.027. Epub 2017 Sep 5.

11. Schirmer MD, Giese AK, Fotiadis P, et al. Spatial Signature of White Matter Hyperintensities in Stroke Patients. Front Neurol. 2019 Mar 19;10:208. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2019.00208. eCollection 2019.

12. Hall М, Frank E, Holmes G, et al. The WEKA Data Mining Software: An Update. SIGKDD Explorations. Witten. 2009;11(1):10-8.

13. Vassilopoulou S, Korompoki E, Tountopoulou A, et al. Lateralization of Insular Ischemic Stroke is Not Associated With Any Stroke Clinical Outcomes: The Athens Stroke Registry. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 Feb;29(2):104529. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis. 2019.104529. Epub 2019 Dec 3.

14. Kulesh AA, Demin DA, Vinogradov OI. Cryptogenic stroke. Part 1: Aorto-arterial embolism. Meditsinskiy sovet = Medical Council. 2021;(4):78-87. doi: 10.21518/2079-701X-2021-4-78-87 (In Russ.).

15. Giammello F, Cosenza D, Casella C, et al. Isolated Insular Stroke: Clinical Presentation. Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020;49(1):10-8. doi: 10.1159/000504777. Epub 2020 Feb 5.

16. Arboix A, Alio J. Acute cardioembolic cerebral infarction: answers to clinical questions. Curr Cardiol Rev. 2012 Feb;8(1):54-67. doi: 10.2174/157340312801215791