A E Grams1, M Knoflach2, R Rehwald3, J Willeit2, M Sojer2, E R Gizewski4, B Glodny3. 1. From the Departments of Neuroradiology (A.E.G., E.R.G.) astrid.grams@googlemail.com astrid.grams@i-med.ac.at. 2. Neurology (M.K., J.W., M.S.). 3. Radiology (R.R., B.G.), Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. 4. From the Departments of Neuroradiology (A.E.G., E.R.G.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dual-energy CT features the opportunity to differentiate among up to 3 different materials because the absorption of x-rays depends on the applied tube voltage and the atomic number of the material. For example, it is possible to distinguish between blood-brain barrier disruption and an intracerebral hemorrhage following treatment for a stroke. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether dual-energy CT is capable of distinguishing intra-arterial contrast agent from residually clotted vessels immediately after endovascular stroke therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients (9 women, 7 men; mean age, 63.6 ± 13.09 years) were examined. Measurements were made on the postinterventional dual-energy CT virtual noncontrast, iodine map, and "weighted" brain window (weighted dual-energy) series. Postinterventional conventional angiography was used as the criterion standard method. RESULTS: A residual clot was found in 10 patients. On the virtual noncontrast series, the Hounsfield attenuation of the clotted arteries was higher than that in the corresponding perfused contralateral arteries (53.72 ± 9.42 HU versus 41.64 ± 7.87 HU; P < .05). The latter had higher absorption values on the weighted dual-energy series than on the virtual noncontrast series (49.37 ± 7.44 HU versus 41.64 ± 7.87 HU; P < .05). The sensitivity for the detection of a residual clot was 90%; the specificity was 83.3%, and the accuracy was 87.5%. Interrater agreement was good (κ = 0.733). CONCLUSIONS: Dual-energy CT may be valuable in the detection of clot persistence or early re-thrombosis without the necessity of additional contrast administration. However, its relevance for the prediction of outcomes remains to be determined in further studies.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Dual-energy CT features the opportunity to differentiate among up to 3 different materials because the absorption of x-rays depends on the applied tube voltage and the atomic number of the material. For example, it is possible to distinguish between blood-brain barrier disruption and an intracerebral hemorrhage following treatment for a stroke. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether dual-energy CT is capable of distinguishing intra-arterial contrast agent from residually clotted vessels immediately after endovascular stroke therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients (9 women, 7 men; mean age, 63.6 ± 13.09 years) were examined. Measurements were made on the postinterventional dual-energy CT virtual noncontrast, iodine map, and "weighted" brain window (weighted dual-energy) series. Postinterventional conventional angiography was used as the criterion standard method. RESULTS: A residual clot was found in 10 patients. On the virtual noncontrast series, the Hounsfield attenuation of the clotted arteries was higher than that in the corresponding perfused contralateral arteries (53.72 ± 9.42 HU versus 41.64 ± 7.87 HU; P < .05). The latter had higher absorption values on the weighted dual-energy series than on the virtual noncontrast series (49.37 ± 7.44 HU versus 41.64 ± 7.87 HU; P < .05). The sensitivity for the detection of a residual clot was 90%; the specificity was 83.3%, and the accuracy was 87.5%. Interrater agreement was good (κ = 0.733). CONCLUSIONS: Dual-energy CT may be valuable in the detection of clot persistence or early re-thrombosis without the necessity of additional contrast administration. However, its relevance for the prediction of outcomes remains to be determined in further studies.
Authors: Alida A Postma; Paul A M Hofman; Annika A R Stadler; Robert J van Oostenbrugge; Maud P M Tijssen; Joachim E Wildberger Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Lucia Flors; Carlos Leiva-Salinas; Patrick T Norton; James T Patrie; Klaus D Hagspiel Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: S J Kim; H K Lim; H Y Lee; C G Choi; D H Lee; D C Suh; S M Kim; J K Kim; B Krauss Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-01-12 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Colin J Przybylowski; Dale Ding; Robert M Starke; Christopher R Durst; R Webster Crowley; Kenneth C Liu Journal: World J Clin Cases Date: 2014-11-16 Impact factor: 1.337
Authors: D Morhard; L Ertl; W Gerdsmeier-Petz; B Ertl-Wagner; G Schulte-Altedorneburg Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2013-12-06 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Tanja Djurdjevic; Rafael Rehwald; Michael Knoflach; Benjamin Matosevic; Stefan Kiechl; Elke Ruth Gizewski; Bernhard Glodny; Astrid Ellen Grams Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 5.315