BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Identification of ICH, particularly after ischemic stroke therapy, is important for guiding subsequent antithrombotic management and is often confounded by contrast staining or extravasations within intracerebral or extra-axial compartments. This study evaluates the accuracy of DECT in distinguishing ICH from iodinated contrast in patients who received contrast via IA or IV delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients who had received IA or IV contrast were evaluated using a DECT scanner at 80kV and 140kV to distinguish hyperdensities secondary to contrast staining or extravasation from those representing ICH. A 3-material decomposition algorithm was used to obtain virtual noncontrast images and iodine overlay images. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of DECT in prospectively distinguishing intracranial contrast from hemorrhage within parenchymal, subarachnoid, extra-axial, intraventricular, and intra-arterial compartments were computed using routine clinical follow-up imaging as the standard of reference. RESULTS: A total of 148 foci of intracranial hyperattenuation were identified. Of these, 142 were correctly classified for the presence of hemorrhage by DECT. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for identifying hemorrhage, depending on the compartment being considered, were 100%, 84.4%-100%, and 87.2%-100%, respectively. The only instances where DECT failed to correctly identify the source of hyperattenuation was in the presence of diffuse parenchymal calcification (n = 5) and a metallic streak artifact (n = 1). CONCLUSION: After IA and/or IV contrast administration, DECT can accurately differentiate all types of ICH from iodinated contrast without employing any additional radiation.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Identification of ICH, particularly after ischemic stroke therapy, is important for guiding subsequent antithrombotic management and is often confounded by contrast staining or extravasations within intracerebral or extra-axial compartments. This study evaluates the accuracy of DECT in distinguishing ICH from iodinated contrast in patients who received contrast via IA or IV delivery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients who had received IA or IV contrast were evaluated using a DECT scanner at 80kV and 140kV to distinguish hyperdensities secondary to contrast staining or extravasation from those representing ICH. A 3-material decomposition algorithm was used to obtain virtual noncontrast images and iodine overlay images. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of DECT in prospectively distinguishing intracranial contrast from hemorrhage within parenchymal, subarachnoid, extra-axial, intraventricular, and intra-arterial compartments were computed using routine clinical follow-up imaging as the standard of reference. RESULTS: A total of 148 foci of intracranial hyperattenuation were identified. Of these, 142 were correctly classified for the presence of hemorrhage by DECT. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for identifying hemorrhage, depending on the compartment being considered, were 100%, 84.4%-100%, and 87.2%-100%, respectively. The only instances where DECT failed to correctly identify the source of hyperattenuation was in the presence of diffuse parenchymal calcification (n = 5) and a metallic streak artifact (n = 1). CONCLUSION: After IA and/or IV contrast administration, DECT can accurately differentiate all types of ICH from iodinated contrast without employing any additional radiation.
Authors: Michael M Lell; Fabian Hinkmann; Emeka Nkenke; Bernhard Schmidt; Peter Seidensticker; Willi A Kalender; Michael Uder; Stephan Achenbach Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2009-10-09 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Balazs Ruzsics; Heon Lee; Peter L Zwerner; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Philip Costello; U Joseph Schoepf Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-06-04 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Paul Stolzmann; Hans Scheffel; Katharina Rentsch; Thomas Schertler; Thomas Frauenfelder; Sebastian Leschka; Tullio Sulser; Borut Marincek; Hatem Alkadhi Journal: Urol Res Date: 2008-06-11
Authors: Anno Graser; Thorsten R C Johnson; Elizabeth M Hecht; Christoph R Becker; Christianne Leidecker; Michael Staehler; Christian G Stief; Henriette Hildebrandt; Myrna C B Godoy; Myra E Finn; Flora Stepansky; Maximilian F Reiser; Michael Macari Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jirí Ferda; Milan Novák; Hynek Mírka; Jan Baxa; Eva Ferdová; Alena Bednárová; Thomas Flohr; Bernhard Schmidt; Ernst Klotz; Boris Kreuzberg Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-07-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: F B Cabral; L H Castro-Afonso; G S Nakiri; L M Monsignore; Src Fábio; A C Dos Santos; O M Pontes-Neto; D G Abud Journal: Interv Neuroradiol Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 1.610
Authors: Su Young Yun; Young Jin Heo; Hae Woong Jeong; Jin Wook Baek; Hye Jung Choo; Gi Won Shin; Sung Tae Kim; Young Gyun Jeong; Ji Young Lee; Hyun Seok Jung Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: A E Grams; M Knoflach; R Rehwald; J Willeit; M Sojer; E R Gizewski; B Glodny Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: O Khalilzadeh; B Sabel; Y Sung; A Parikh; C M Phan; J Dinkel; A J Yoo; J Romero; R Gupta Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2014-01-30 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Claude A Beaty; George J Arnaoutakis; Maura A Grega; Chase W Robinson; Timothy J George; William A Baumgartner; Rebecca F Gottesman; Guy M McKhann; Duke E Cameron; Glenn J Whitman Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 4.330