Computed tomography hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch vs. automated perfusion mismatch to identify stroke patients eligible for thrombolysis.

Background and purpose

Automated perfusion imaging can detect stroke patients with unknown time of symptom onset who are eligible for thrombolysis. However, the availability of this technique is limited. We, therefore, established the novel concept of computed tomography (CT) hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch, i.e., an ischemic core lesion visible on cerebral perfusion CT without visible hypodensity in the corresponding native cerebral CT. We compared both methods regarding their accuracy in identifying patients suitable for thrombolysis.

Methods

In a retrospective analysis of the MissPerfeCT observational cohort study, patients were classified as suitable or not for thrombolysis based on established time window and imaging criteria. We calculated predictive values for hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch and automated perfusion imaging to compare accuracy in the identification of patients suitable for thrombolysis.

Results

Of 247 patients, 219 (88.7%) were eligible for thrombolysis and 28 (11.3%) were not eligible for thrombolysis. Of 197 patients who were within 4.5 h of symptom onset, 190 (96.4%) were identified by hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch and 88 (44.7%) by automated perfusion mismatch (

Conclusion

The novel method of hypoperfusion-hypodensity mismatch can identify patients suitable for thrombolysis with higher sensitivity and lower specificity than established techniques. Using this simple method might therefore increase the proportion of patients treated with thrombolysis without the use of special automated software.The MissPerfeCT study is a retrospective observational multicenter cohort study and is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04277728).

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Sporns, Kemmling, Meyer, Krogias, Puetz, Thierfelder, Duering, Lukas, Kaiser, Langner, Brehm, Rotkopf, Kunz, Beuker, Heindel, Fiehler, Schramm, Wiendl, Minnerup, Psychogios and Minnerup.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

JM has received grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (BMBF), Else KrönerFresenius-Stiftung, EVER Pharma Jena GmbH, and Ferrer International, travel grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, and speaking fees from Bayer Vital and Chugai Pharma. MD has received honoraria for lectures from Bayer Vital and Sanofi Genzyme. Consultant for Hovid Berhad and Roche Pharma. CL received consulting and speaker’s honoraria from Biogen Idec, Bayer Schering, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sanykyo, Merck Serono, Novartis, Sanofi, Genzyme and TEVA. JF has received grants from German Ministry of Science and Education (BMBF), German Ministry of Economy and Innovation (BMWi), German Research Foundation (DFG), European Union (EU), Hamburgische Investitions- und Förderbank (IFB), Medtronic, Microvention, Route92, Stryker. Consultant for: Acandis, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cerenovus, Evasc Neurovascular, MD Clinicals, Medtronic, Microvention, Penumbra, Phenox, Stryker, Transverse Medical. Stock holder: Tegus Medical. CK has received honoraria and travel grants from Bayer Vital and Daiichi-Sankyo. DK receives a grant from Else Kröner-Fresenius-Center for Digital Health. PS has received grants from Siemens and Penumbra. Consultant for: Penumbra, Phenox, Stryker, Cerus endovascular. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.