Literature DB >> 25749851

Delay-sensitive and delay-insensitive deconvolution perfusion-CT: similar ischemic core and penumbra volumes if appropriate threshold selected for each.

Fengyuan Man1, James T Patrie, Wenjun Xin, Guangming Zhu, Qinghua Hou, Patrik Michel, Ashraf Eskandari, Tudor Jovin, Junfang Xian, Zhenchang Wang, Max Wintermark.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Perfusion-CT (PCT) processing involves deconvolution, a mathematical operation that computes the perfusion parameters from the PCT time density curves and an arterial curve. Delay-sensitive deconvolution does not correct for arrival delay of contrast, whereas delay-insensitive deconvolution does. The goal of this study was to compare delay-sensitive and delay-insensitive deconvolution PCT in terms of delineation of the ischemic core and penumbra.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 100 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent admission PCT and CT angiography (CTA), a follow-up vascular study to determine recanalization status, and a follow-up noncontrast head CT (NCT) or MRI to calculate final infarct volume. PCT datasets were processed twice, once using delay-sensitive deconvolution and once using delay-insensitive deconvolution. Regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn, and cerebral blood flow (CBF), cerebral blood volume (CBV), and mean transit time (MTT) in these ROIs were recorded and compared. Volume and geographic distribution of ischemic core and penumbra using both deconvolution methods were also recorded and compared.
RESULTS: MTT and CBF values are affected by the deconvolution method used (p < 0.05), while CBV values remain unchanged. Optimal thresholds to delineate ischemic core and penumbra are different for delay-sensitive (145 % MTT, CBV 2 ml × 100 g(-1) × min(-1)) and delay-insensitive deconvolution (135 % MTT, CBV 2 ml × 100 g(-1) × min(-1) for delay-insensitive deconvolution). When applying these different thresholds, however, the predicted ischemic core (p = 0.366) and penumbra (p = 0.405) were similar with both methods.
CONCLUSION: Both delay-sensitive and delay-insensitive deconvolution methods are appropriate for PCT processing in acute ischemic stroke patients. The predicted ischemic core and penumbra are similar with both methods when using different sets of thresholds, specific for each deconvolution method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25749851     DOI: 10.1007/s00234-015-1507-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuroradiology        ISSN: 0028-3940            Impact factor:   2.804


  19 in total

Review 1.  Quantification of perfusion using bolus tracking magnetic resonance imaging in stroke: assumptions, limitations, and potential implications for clinical use.

Authors:  F Calamante; D G Gadian; A Connelly
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 7.914

2.  Delay and dispersion effects in dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI: simulations using singular value decomposition.

Authors:  F Calamante; D G Gadian; A Connelly
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Imaging of acute ischemic stroke.

Authors:  Carlos Leiva-Salinas; Max Wintermark
Journal:  Neuroimaging Clin N Am       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.264

4.  Perfusion CT in acute ischemic stroke: a qualitative and quantitative comparison of deconvolution and maximum slope approach.

Authors:  B Abels; E Klotz; B F Tomandl; S P Kloska; M M Lell
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2010-06-25       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 5.  Comparative overview of brain perfusion imaging techniques.

Authors:  M Wintermark; M Sesay; E Barbier; K Borbély; W P Dillon; J D Eastwood; T C Glenn; C B Grandin; S Pedraza; J F Soustiel; T Nariai; G Zaharchuk; J M Caillé; V Dousset; H Yonas
Journal:  J Neuroradiol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.447

Review 6.  CT perfusion in acute stroke.

Authors:  Sanjay K Shetty; Michael H Lev
Journal:  Neuroimaging Clin N Am       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.264

Review 7.  Quantitative assessment of regional cerebral blood flows by perfusion CT studies at low injection rates: a critical review of the underlying theoretical models.

Authors:  M Wintermark; P Maeder; J P Thiran; P Schnyder; R Meuli
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  The Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score in clinical practice: what have we learned?

Authors:  V Puetz; I Dzialowski; M D Hill; A M Demchuk
Journal:  Int J Stroke       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 5.266

9.  Estimation of bolus dispersion effects in perfusion MRI using image-based computational fluid dynamics.

Authors:  Fernando Calamante; Peter J Yim; Juan R Cebral
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 6.556

10.  Perfusion CT in acute stroke: a comprehensive analysis of infarct and penumbra.

Authors:  Andrew Bivard; Christopher Levi; Neil Spratt; Mark Parsons
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  3 in total

1.  Identifying perfusion deficits on CT perfusion images using temporal similarity perfusion (TSP) mapping.

Authors:  Jill B De Vis; Sunbin Song; Marie Luby; Jan Willem Dankbaar; Daniel Glen; Richard Reynolds; Brigitta K Velthuis; Wouter Kroon; Lawrence L Latour; Reinoud P H Bokkers
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Characteristics of Misclassified CT Perfusion Ischemic Core in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke.

Authors:  Ralph R E G Geuskens; Jordi Borst; Marit Lucas; A M Merel Boers; Olvert A Berkhemer; Yvo B W E M Roos; Marianne A A van Walderveen; Sjoerd F M Jenniskens; Wim H van Zwam; Diederik W J Dippel; Charles B L M Majoie; Henk A Marquering
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Optimal dilution of contrast medium for quantitating parenchymal blood volume using a flat-panel detector.

Authors:  Takumi Kuriyama; Nobuyuki Sakai; Mikiya Beppu; Chiaki Sakai; Hirotoshi Imamura; Iwao Kojima; Katsuhiro Masago; Nobuyuki Katakami
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 1.671

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.