Emilie M M Santos1,2,3,4, Wiro J Niessen1,2,5, Albert J Yoo6, Olvert A Berkhemer3, Ludo F Beenen3, Charles B Majoie3, Henk A Marquering3,4. 1. Dept. of Radiology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Dept. of Medical Informatics, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 3. Dept. of Radiology, AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 4. Dept. of Biomedical Engineering and Physics, AMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Faculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Radiology, Division of Interventional Neuroradiology, Texas Stroke Institute, Plano, Texas, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In acute ischemic stroke (AIS) management, CT-based thrombus density has been associated with treatment success. However, currently used thrombus measurements are prone to inter-observer variability and oversimplify the heterogeneous thrombus composition. Our aim was first to introduce an automated method to assess the entire thrombus density and then to compare the measured entire thrombus density with respect to current standard manual measurements. MATERIALS AND METHOD: In 135 AIS patients, the density distribution of the entire thrombus was determined. Density distributions were described using medians, interquartile ranges (IQR), kurtosis, and skewedness. Differences between the median of entire thrombus measurements and commonly applied manual measurements using 3 regions of interest were determined using linear regression. RESULTS: Density distributions varied considerably with medians ranging from 20.0 to 62.8 HU and IQRs ranging from 9.3 to 55.8 HU. The average median of the thrombus density distributions (43.5 ± 10.2 HU) was lower than the manual assessment (49.6 ± 8.0 HU) (p<0.05). The difference between manual measurements and median density of entire thrombus decreased with increasing density (r = 0.64; p<0.05), revealing relatively higher manual measurements for low density thrombi such that manual density measurement tend overestimates the real thrombus density. CONCLUSIONS: Automatic measurements of the full thrombus expose a wide variety of thrombi density distribution, which is not grasped with currently used manual measurement. Furthermore, discrimination of low and high density thrombi is improved with the automated method.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In acute ischemic stroke (AIS) management, CT-based thrombus density has been associated with treatment success. However, currently used thrombus measurements are prone to inter-observer variability and oversimplify the heterogeneous thrombus composition. Our aim was first to introduce an automated method to assess the entire thrombus density and then to compare the measured entire thrombus density with respect to current standard manual measurements. MATERIALS AND METHOD: In 135 AISpatients, the density distribution of the entire thrombus was determined. Density distributions were described using medians, interquartile ranges (IQR), kurtosis, and skewedness. Differences between the median of entire thrombus measurements and commonly applied manual measurements using 3 regions of interest were determined using linear regression. RESULTS: Density distributions varied considerably with medians ranging from 20.0 to 62.8 HU and IQRs ranging from 9.3 to 55.8 HU. The average median of the thrombus density distributions (43.5 ± 10.2 HU) was lower than the manual assessment (49.6 ± 8.0 HU) (p<0.05). The difference between manual measurements and median density of entire thrombus decreased with increasing density (r = 0.64; p<0.05), revealing relatively higher manual measurements for low density thrombi such that manual density measurement tend overestimates the real thrombus density. CONCLUSIONS: Automatic measurements of the full thrombus expose a wide variety of thrombi density distribution, which is not grasped with currently used manual measurement. Furthermore, discrimination of low and high density thrombi is improved with the automated method.
Authors: J M Niesten; I C van der Schaaf; Y van der Graaf; L J Kappelle; G J Biessels; A D Horsch; J W Dankbaar; M J A Luitse; T van Seeters; E J Smit; W P Th M Mali; B K Velthuis Journal: Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Parham Moftakhar; Joey D English; Daniel L Cooke; Warren T Kim; Charles Stout; Wade S Smith; Christopher F Dowd; Randall T Higashida; Van V Halbach; Steven W Hetts Journal: Stroke Date: 2012-10-30 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Joris M Niesten; Irene C van der Schaaf; Lievay van Dam; Aryan Vink; Jan Albert Vos; Wouter J Schonewille; Peter C de Bruin; Willem P T M Mali; Birgitta K Velthuis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-11 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Agnetha A E Bruggeman; Nyk Aberson; Manon Kappelhof; Bruna G Dutra; Jan W Hoving; Josje Brouwer; Manon L Tolhuisen; Nerea Arrarte Terreros; Praneeta R Konduri; Nikki Boodt; Yvo B W E M Roos; Wim H van Zwam; Reinoud Bokkers; Jasper Martens; Henk A Marquering; Bart J Emmer; Charles B L M Majoie Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2022-05-16 Impact factor: 2.995
Authors: Mahsa Mojtahedi; Manon Kappelhof; Elena Ponomareva; Manon Tolhuisen; Ivo Jansen; Agnetha A E Bruggeman; Bruna G Dutra; Lonneke Yo; Natalie LeCouffe; Jan W Hoving; Henk van Voorst; Josje Brouwer; Nerea Arrarte Terreros; Praneeta Konduri; Frederick J A Meijer; Auke Appelman; Kilian M Treurniet; Jonathan M Coutinho; Yvo Roos; Wim van Zwam; Diederik Dippel; Efstratios Gavves; Bart J Emmer; Charles Majoie; Henk Marquering Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-03-12