BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of arterial spin-labeling (ASL) and dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion in detecting cerebral blood flow (CBF) changes before and after endovascular recanalization in acute ischemic syndrome. METHODS: The inclusion criteria for this retrospective study were patients with acute ischemic syndrome who underwent endovascular recanalization and acquisition of both ASL and DSC before and after revascularization. ASL-CBF and multiparametric DSC maps were evaluated for image quality, location, and type of perfusion abnormality. Relative CBF (rCBF) was calculated in the infarction core and hypoperfused areas using coregistered ASL and DSC. Core and hypoperfused rCBF were used for paired pretreatment and posttreatment comparisons. Interobserver and intermodality agreement were evaluated by κ test, and t test was calculated for ASL and DSC rCBF values. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients met our inclusion criteria. Five studies were rated nondiagnostic, resulting in 45 pairs of DSC-ASL available for comparison. ASL and DSC agreed on type and location of the perfusion abnormality in 71% and 80% of cases, respectively. The image quality of ASL was lower than DSC, resulting in interobserver variability for the type (κ=0.45) and location (κ=0.56) of perfusion abnormality. ASL was unable to show any type of perfusion abnormality in 11% of patients. In successfully recanalized patients, hyperperfusion (rCBF >1) was detected in 100% on DSC and 47% on ASL. CONCLUSIONS: ASL is less sensitive than DSC for detecting rCBF changes in patients with acute ischemic syndrome, particularly with respect to hyperperfusion after successful recanalization.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of arterial spin-labeling (ASL) and dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion in detecting cerebral blood flow (CBF) changes before and after endovascular recanalization in acute ischemic syndrome. METHODS: The inclusion criteria for this retrospective study were patients with acute ischemic syndrome who underwent endovascular recanalization and acquisition of both ASL and DSC before and after revascularization. ASL-CBF and multiparametric DSC maps were evaluated for image quality, location, and type of perfusion abnormality. Relative CBF (rCBF) was calculated in the infarction core and hypoperfused areas using coregistered ASL and DSC. Core and hypoperfused rCBF were used for paired pretreatment and posttreatment comparisons. Interobserver and intermodality agreement were evaluated by κ test, and t test was calculated for ASL and DSC rCBF values. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients met our inclusion criteria. Five studies were rated nondiagnostic, resulting in 45 pairs of DSC-ASL available for comparison. ASL and DSC agreed on type and location of the perfusion abnormality in 71% and 80% of cases, respectively. The image quality of ASL was lower than DSC, resulting in interobserver variability for the type (κ=0.45) and location (κ=0.56) of perfusion abnormality. ASL was unable to show any type of perfusion abnormality in 11% of patients. In successfully recanalized patients, hyperperfusion (rCBF >1) was detected in 100% on DSC and 47% on ASL. CONCLUSIONS:ASL is less sensitive than DSC for detecting rCBF changes in patients with acute ischemic syndrome, particularly with respect to hyperperfusion after successful recanalization.
Authors: Eric C Wong; Matthew Cronin; Wen-Chau Wu; Ben Inglis; Lawrence R Frank; Thomas T Liu Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Thies H Jochimsen; Rexford D Newbould; Stefan T Skare; David B Clayton; Gregory W Albers; Michael E Moseley; Roland Bammer Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Emanuel Kanal; A James Barkovich; Charlotte Bell; James P Borgstede; William G Bradley; Jerry W Froelich; Tobias Gilk; J Rod Gimbel; John Gosbee; Ellisa Kuhni-Kaminski; James W Lester; John Nyenhuis; Yoav Parag; Daniel J Schaefer; Elizabeth A Sebek-Scoumis; Jeffrey Weinreb; Loren A Zaremba; Pamela Wilcox; Leonard Lucey; Nancy Sass Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Gregory W Albers; Vincent N Thijs; Lawrence Wechsler; Stephanie Kemp; Gottfried Schlaug; Elaine Skalabrin; Roland Bammer; Wataru Kakuda; Maarten G Lansberg; Ashfaq Shuaib; William Coplin; Scott Hamilton; Michael Moseley; Michael P Marks Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 10.422
Authors: Werner Hacke; Greg Albers; Yasir Al-Rawi; Julien Bogousslavsky; Antonio Davalos; Michael Eliasziw; Michael Fischer; Anthony Furlan; Markku Kaste; Kennedy R Lees; Mariola Soehngen; Steven Warach Journal: Stroke Date: 2004-11-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Stephen M Davis; Geoffrey A Donnan; Mark W Parsons; Christopher Levi; Kenneth S Butcher; Andre Peeters; P Alan Barber; Christopher Bladin; Deidre A De Silva; Graham Byrnes; Jonathan B Chalk; John N Fink; Thomas E Kimber; David Schultz; Peter J Hand; Judith Frayne; Graeme Hankey; Keith Muir; Richard Gerraty; Brian M Tress; Patricia M Desmond Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Raymond V Mirasol; Reinoud P H Bokkers; Daymara A Hernandez; José G Merino; Marie Luby; Steven Warach; Lawrence L Latour Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-01-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Kambiz Nael; Arash Meshksar; David S Liebeskind; Bruce M Coull; Elizabeth A Krupinski; J Pablo Villablanca Journal: Stroke Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Danny J J Wang; Jeffry R Alger; Joe X Qiao; Matthias Gunther; Whitney B Pope; Jeffrey L Saver; Noriko Salamon; David S Liebeskind Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2013-07-06 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Thoralf Thamm; Sarah Zweynert; Sophie K Piper; Vince I Madai; Michelle Livne; Steve Z Martin; Cornelius X Herzig; Matthias A Mutke; Eberhard Siebert; Thomas Liebig; Jan Sobesky Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 2.708