INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to compare infarct core volume on whole brain CT perfusion (CTP) with several limited coverage sizes (i.e., 3, 4, 6, and 8 cm), as currently used in routine clinical practice. METHODS: In total, 40 acute ischemic stroke patients with non-contrast CT (NCCT) and CTP imaging of anterior circulation ischemia were included. Imaging was performed using a 320-multislice CT. Average volumes of infarct core of all simulated partial coverage sizes were calculated. Infarct core volume of each partial brain coverage was compared with infarct core volume of whole brain coverage and expressed using a percentage. To determine the optimal starting position for each simulated CTP coverage, the percentage of infarct coverage was calculated for every possible starting position of the simulated partial coverage in relation to Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score in Acute Stroke Triage (ASPECTS 1) level. RESULTS: Whole brain CTP coverage further increased the percentage of infarct core volume depicted by 10% as compared to the 8-cm coverage when the bottom slice was positioned at the ASPECTS 1 level. Optimization of the position of the region of interest (ROI) in 3 cm, 4 cm, and 8 cm improved the percentage of infarct depicted by 4% for the 8-cm, 7% for the 4-cm, and 13% for the 3-cm coverage size. CONCLUSION: This study shows that whole brain CTP is the optimal coverage for CTP with a substantial improvement in accuracy in quantifying infarct core size. In addition, our results suggest that the optimal position of the ROI in limited coverage depends on the size of the coverage.
INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to compare infarct core volume on whole brain CT perfusion (CTP) with several limited coverage sizes (i.e., 3, 4, 6, and 8 cm), as currently used in routine clinical practice. METHODS: In total, 40 acute ischemic strokepatients with non-contrast CT (NCCT) and CTP imaging of anterior circulation ischemia were included. Imaging was performed using a 320-multislice CT. Average volumes of infarct core of all simulated partial coverage sizes were calculated. Infarct core volume of each partial brain coverage was compared with infarct core volume of whole brain coverage and expressed using a percentage. To determine the optimal starting position for each simulated CTP coverage, the percentage of infarct coverage was calculated for every possible starting position of the simulated partial coverage in relation to Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score in Acute Stroke Triage (ASPECTS 1) level. RESULTS: Whole brain CTP coverage further increased the percentage of infarct core volume depicted by 10% as compared to the 8-cm coverage when the bottom slice was positioned at the ASPECTS 1 level. Optimization of the position of the region of interest (ROI) in 3 cm, 4 cm, and 8 cm improved the percentage of infarct depicted by 4% for the 8-cm, 7% for the 4-cm, and 13% for the 3-cm coverage size. CONCLUSION: This study shows that whole brain CTP is the optimal coverage for CTP with a substantial improvement in accuracy in quantifying infarct core size. In addition, our results suggest that the optimal position of the ROI in limited coverage depends on the size of the coverage.
Authors: J M Biesbroek; J M Niesten; J W Dankbaar; G J Biessels; B K Velthuis; J B Reitsma; I C van der Schaaf Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Albert J Yoo; Zeshan A Chaudhry; Raul G Nogueira; Michael H Lev; Pamela W Schaefer; Lee H Schwamm; Joshua A Hirsch; R Gilberto González Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: A D Furtado; B C Lau; E Vittinghoff; W P Dillon; W S Smith; T Rigby; L Boussel; M Wintermark Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-11-26 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Max Wintermark; Wade S Smith; Nerissa U Ko; Marcel Quist; Pierre Schnyder; William P Dillon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Chelsea S Kidwell; Reza Jahan; Jeffrey Gornbein; Jeffry R Alger; Val Nenov; Zahra Ajani; Lei Feng; Brett C Meyer; Scott Olson; Lee H Schwamm; Albert J Yoo; Randolph S Marshall; Philip M Meyers; Dileep R Yavagal; Max Wintermark; Judy Guzy; Sidney Starkman; Jeffrey L Saver Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Wade S Smith; Gene Sung; Jeffrey Saver; Ronald Budzik; Gary Duckwiler; David S Liebeskind; Helmi L Lutsep; Marilyn M Rymer; Randall T Higashida; Sidney Starkman; Y Pierre Gobin; Donald Frei; Thomas Grobelny; Frank Hellinger; Dan Huddle; Chelsea Kidwell; Walter Koroshetz; Michael Marks; Gary Nesbit; Isaac E Silverman Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Pamela W Schaefer; Elizabeth R Barak; Shahmir Kamalian; Leila Rezai Gharai; Lee Schwamm; Ramon Gilberto Gonzalez; Michael H Lev Journal: Stroke Date: 2008-08-21 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Aquilla S Turk; Jordan Asher Magarick; Don Frei; Kyle Michael Fargen; Imran Chaudry; Christine A Holmstedt; Joyce Nicholas; J Mocco; Raymond D Turner; Daniel Huddle; David Loy; Richard Bellon; Gwendolyn Dooley; Robert Adams; Michelle Whaley; Chris Fanale; Edward Jauch Journal: J Neurointerv Surg Date: 2012-11-26 Impact factor: 5.836
Authors: Robert A Frank; Santanu Chakraborty; Trevor McGrath; Alexander Mungham; James Ross; Dar Dowlatshahi; Michel Shamy; Grant Stotts Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2018-05-03
Authors: Fasco van Ommen; Frans Kauw; Edwin Bennink; Jan Willem Dankbaar; Max A Viergever; Hugo W A M de Jong Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-05-27 Impact factor: 4.071