Prognostic Accuracy of CTP Summary Maps in Patients with Large Vessel Occlusive Stroke and Poor Revascularization after Mechanical Thrombectomy-Comparison of Three Automated Perfusion Software Applications.
artificial intelligence
automated CT perfusion software
ischemic stroke
mechanical thrombectomy
perfusion CT
Journal
Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)
ISSN: 2379-139X
Titre abrégé: Tomography
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101671170
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 05 2022
17 05 2022
Historique:
received:
29
03
2022
revised:
06
05
2022
accepted:
12
05
2022
entrez:
1
6
2022
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
7
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Background: Innovative automated perfusion software solutions offer support in the management of acute stroke by providing information about the infarct core and penumbra. While the performance of different software solutions has mainly been investigated in patients with successful recanalization, the prognostic accuracy of the hypoperfusion maps in cases of futile recanalization has hardly been validated. Methods: In 39 patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) due to large vessel occlusion (LVO) in the anterior circulation and poor revascularization (thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 0-2a) after mechanical thrombectomy (MT), hypoperfusion analysis was performed using three different automated perfusion software solutions (A: RAPID, B: Brainomix e-CTP, C: Syngo.via). The hypoperfusion volumes (HV) as Tmax > 6 s were compared with the final infarct volumes (FIV) on follow-up CT 36−48 h after futile recanalization. Bland−Altman analysis was applied to display the levels of agreement and to evaluate systematic differences. Based on the median hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR, volumetric ratio of tissue with a Tmax > 10 s and Tmax > 6 s) patients were dichotomized into high- and low-HIR groups. Subgroup analysis with favorable (<0.6) and unfavorable (≥0.6) HIR was performed with respect to the FIV. HIR was correlated to clinical baseline and outcome parameters using Pearson’s correlation. Results: Overall, there was good correlation without significant differences between the HVs and the FIVs with package A (r = 0.78, p < 0.001) being slightly superior to B and C. However, levels of agreement were very wide for all software applications in Bland-Altman analysis. In cases of large infarcts exceeding 150 mL the performance of the automated software solutions generally decreased. Subgroup analysis revealed the FIV to be generally underestimated in patients with HIR ≥ 0.6 (p < 0.05). In the subgroup with favorable HIR, however, there was a trend towards an overestimation of the FIV. Nevertheless, packages A and B showed good correlation between the HVs and FIVs without significant differences (p > 0.2), while only package C significantly overestimated the FIV (−54.6 ± 56.0 mL, p = 0.001). The rate of modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0−3 after 3 months was significantly higher in favorable vs. unfavorable HIR (42.1% vs. 13.3%, p = 0.02). Lower HIR was associated with higher Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) at presentation and on follow-up imaging, lower risk of malignant edema, and better outcome (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Overall, the performance of the automated perfusion software solutions to predict the FIV after futile recanalization is good, with decreasing accuracy in large infarcts exceeding 150 mL. However, depending on the HIR, FIV can be significantly over- and underestimated, with Syngo showing the widest range. Our results indicate that the HIR can serve as valuable parameter for outcome predictions and facilitate the decision whether or not to perform MT in delicate cases.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35645395
pii: tomography8030109
doi: 10.3390/tomography8030109
pmc: PMC9149832
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1350-1362Références
J Clin Med. 2021 Apr 26;10(9):
pubmed: 33925888
Neurology. 2019 Nov 12;93(20):888-898
pubmed: 31636160
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2019 Dec;28(12):104392
pubmed: 31562038
Stroke. 2017 Apr;48(4):932-938
pubmed: 28283606
N Engl J Med. 2015 Mar 12;372(11):1019-30
pubmed: 25671798
Stroke. 2009 Feb;40(2):469-75
pubmed: 19109547
Radiology. 2013 May;267(2):543-50
pubmed: 23264345
Stroke. 2019 Apr;50(4):917-922
pubmed: 30841821
J Clin Neurosci. 2013 Sep;20(9):1219-23
pubmed: 23602573
Int J Stroke. 2020 Jan;15(1):55-60
pubmed: 30794104
Ann Neurol. 2011 Sep;70(3):384-401
pubmed: 21796665
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 1;372(1):11-20
pubmed: 25517348
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2020 Jan/Feb;44(1):75-77
pubmed: 31804241
Neurology. 2008 Nov 25;71(22):1804-11
pubmed: 19029520
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2020 Oct;40(10):1966-1974
pubmed: 32423329
Int J Stroke. 2021 Jul;16(5):497-509
pubmed: 33818215
Stroke. 2010 Jun;41(6):1169-74
pubmed: 20413735
Eur J Neurol. 2020 May;27(5):864-870
pubmed: 32068938
Stroke. 2022 May;53(5):1657-1664
pubmed: 34872342
J Clin Med. 2021 Mar 21;10(6):
pubmed: 33801050
Stroke. 2014 Apr;45(4):1018-23
pubmed: 24595591
Neurocrit Care. 2021 Aug;35(1):79-86
pubmed: 33200332
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2021 Aug;42(8):1380-1386
pubmed: 34140276
Ann Neurol. 2018 Oct;84(4):616-620
pubmed: 30168180
Stroke. 2016 Sep;47(9):2311-7
pubmed: 27507864
J Neurointerv Surg. 2022 Mar;14(3):242-247
pubmed: 33785638
Stroke. 1993 Nov;24(11):1691-6
pubmed: 8236345