London, United Kingdom 2013 Poster Session Red Cerebrovasc Dis 2013; 35 (suppl 3)1-854 451 314 Etiology of stroke and risk factors Comparison of Isolated Posterior Inferior Cerebellar Artery Territorial infarction; Unilateral infarction vs Bilateral infarction N.C. Choi1, S.N. Son2, S.K. Kim3, H.Y. Kang4, J.C. Kwon5, D.S. Choi6, K.J. Park7, O.Y. Kwon8, B.H. Lim9 Dept. of Neurology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, SOUTH KOREA1, Dept. of Neurology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, SOUTH KOREA2, Dept. of Neurol-ogy, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, SOUTH KOREA3, Dept. of Neurology, Gyeo-ngsang National University Hospital, Jinju, SOUTH KOREA4, Dept. of Neurology, Fatima Hospital, Changwon, SOUTH KOREA5, Dept. of Neuroradiology, Gyeongsang National University Hospi-tal, Jinju, SOUTH KOREA6, Dept. of Neurology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, SOUTH KOREA7, Dept. of Neurology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, SOUTH KOREA8, Dept. of Neurology, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Jinju, SOUTH KOREA9 Background: Bilateral cerebellar infarction of posterior inferior cerebellar artery (PICA) territory is rare. Unlike unilateral PICA infarction (UPICAI), bilateral PICA infarction (BPICAI) have attracted little attention. Comparing with UPICAI and BPICAI, the aim of this study was to verify the etiol-ogies of BPICAI. Methods: From January 2009 to March 2012, retrospective study was executed 1,698 consecutive patients who were registered at stroke center in the Gyeongsang National Uni-versity Hospital. After 116 patients were excluded due to hemorrhagic stroke, 122 patients(7.7%) of cerebellar infarction were selected. 42 patients(34.4%) with PICA infarction who underwent brain MRI and MRA were selected and topographically divided into 2 groups: UPICAI and BPIC-AI. The risk factors, concomitant lateral medullary infarction, vertebral artery disease and TOAST classification were analyzed. Results: Among 42 patients with PICA infarction, 34 patients(80.9%) had UPICAI while 8 patients had BPICAI. 8 patients(19.0%) had comcomitant lateral medullary in-farction. Age, gender and risk factors were not significantly different between UPCAI and BPICAI. In TOAST classification, the most common cause in both groups was large artery atherosclerosis. BPICAI tend to higher association with atherosclerosis, but there were not significantly different between two groups. Concomitant lateral medullary infarction and vertebral artery disease were not significantly different between two groups. Conclusion: Risk factors and etiologies were not signifi-cantly different between UPICAI and BPICAI. Most common etiology of UPICAI and BPICAI was large artery atherosclerosis. 315 Etiology of stroke and risk factors Bilateral middle cerebral artery ischemia due to ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome: a case report and review of the literature. C. CRET1, G. MARY-HECK2, A. AMERI3 CHG MEAUX, SERVICE DE NEUROLOGIE, MEAUX, FRANCE1, CHG MEAUX, SER-VICE DE NEUROLOGIE, MEAUX, FRANCE2, CHG MEAUX, SERVICE DE NEUROLOGIE, MEAUX, FRANCE3 Background: Ischemic strokes occurring in young people lead to consider rare causes, other than atherosclerosis and cardio-embolic mechanism. Ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome is an uncom-mon but potentially iatrogenic condition that may appear following some infertility treatment and may lead to thromboembolic complications. Although venous thromboses are more frequent in this setting, cerebral arterial ischemia sometimes happens. Case report: We report the case of a thirty-three year-old woman, who presented with bilateral mid-dle cerebral artery strokes one week after ovarian induction. Her medical history was marked by a polycystic ovary syndrome. The initial clinical presentation was abdominal pain and hydro elec-trolyte disturbance. Aphasia appeared 48 hours later and the ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome reached the third grade of the World Health Organization classification. Magnetic resonance imaging showed left frontal and right parietal high signal areas on T2-weighted and diffusion images with hemorrhagic conversion in the left-sided lesion, suggestive of ischemia. Any other cause has been ruled out after an extensive biological and morphological assessment. An anti-platelet treatment was introduced and she improved gradually. Discussion: Thrombosis is a potentially serious complication of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome with an incidence of less than five per cent. Seventy five per cent of thromboembolic complication is venous thrombosis and only twenty five per cent are represented by arterial thrombosis. Cerebral ischemia is about fifty per cent of the arterial complications: about twenty cases were reported in the literature since 1966. The appropriate treatment is not well defined: anti-platelet or anticoagulant have been proposed. Conclusion: This case supports that ovulation induction may be a recognized cause of cerebral in-farction in otherwise healthy women.
Karger_ESC London_2013
To see the actual publication please follow the link above