Arne Potreck1, Fatih Seker2, Angelika Hoffmann2, Johannes Pfaff2, Simon Nagel3, Martin Bendszus2, Sabine Heiland2, Mirko Pham2. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, INF 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. arne.potreck@med.uni-heidelberg.de. 2. Department of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, INF 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. Department of Neurology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a quantitative and observer-independent method to evaluate pial collateral circulation by DSC-perfusion MRI and test whether this novel method delivers diagnostic information which is redundant to or independent from conventional penumbra imaging by the mismatch approach. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 47 patients with M1 occlusion who underwent MR diffusion/perfusion imaging and mechanical thrombectomy at our facility. By automated registration and segmentation, Tmax delays were attributed specifically to the pial, cortical and parenchymal compartments. The resulting pial volumes at delay were defined as the pial Tmax map-assessed collateral score (TMACS) and correlated with gold standard digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Mismatch ratio was assessed by conventional penumbra defining MRI criteria. RESULTS: Strong correlation was found between TMACS and angiographically assessed collateral score (Pearson ρ = -0.74, p < 0.001). In multiple logistic regression, both good collaterals according to TMACS [OR 4.3 (1.1-19, p = 0.04)] and mismatch ratio ≥ 3.5 [OR 12.3 (1.88-249, p = 0.03)] were independent predictors of favourable clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Perfusion delay in the pial compartment, as evaluated by TMACS, closely reflects the extent of pial collaterals in gold-standard DSA. TMACS and mismatch ratio were found to be complementary predictors of a favourable clinical outcome, each adding independent predictive information. KEY POINTS: • MRI-DSC perfusion delay specific in the pial compartment reflects leptomeningeal collateralization. • A novel quantitative- and observer-independent marker of collateral status (TMACS) is introduced. • Quantification of collateral status leads to an independent predictor of neurological outcome.
OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a quantitative and observer-independent method to evaluate pial collateral circulation by DSC-perfusion MRI and test whether this novel method delivers diagnostic information which is redundant to or independent from conventional penumbra imaging by the mismatch approach. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 47 patients with M1 occlusion who underwent MR diffusion/perfusion imaging and mechanical thrombectomy at our facility. By automated registration and segmentation, Tmax delays were attributed specifically to the pial, cortical and parenchymal compartments. The resulting pial volumes at delay were defined as the pial Tmax map-assessed collateral score (TMACS) and correlated with gold standard digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Mismatch ratio was assessed by conventional penumbra defining MRI criteria. RESULTS: Strong correlation was found between TMACS and angiographically assessed collateral score (Pearson ρ = -0.74, p < 0.001). In multiple logistic regression, both good collaterals according to TMACS [OR 4.3 (1.1-19, p = 0.04)] and mismatch ratio ≥ 3.5 [OR 12.3 (1.88-249, p = 0.03)] were independent predictors of favourable clinical outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Perfusion delay in the pial compartment, as evaluated by TMACS, closely reflects the extent of pial collaterals in gold-standard DSA. TMACS and mismatch ratio were found to be complementary predictors of a favourable clinical outcome, each adding independent predictive information. KEY POINTS: • MRI-DSC perfusion delay specific in the pial compartment reflects leptomeningeal collateralization. • A novel quantitative- and observer-independent marker of collateral status (TMACS) is introduced. • Quantification of collateral status leads to an independent predictor of neurological outcome.
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Søren Christensen; Brian M Tress; Leonid Churilov; Patricia M Desmond; Mark W Parsons; P Alan Barber; Christopher R Levi; Christopher Bladin; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 6.200
Authors: Pamela W Schaefer; Leticia Souza; Shervin Kamalian; Joshua A Hirsch; Albert J Yoo; Shahmir Kamalian; R Gilberto Gonzalez; Michael H Lev Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Bijoy K Menon; Emmad Qazi; Vivek Nambiar; Lydia D Foster; Sharon D Yeatts; David Liebeskind; Tudor G Jovin; Mayank Goyal; Michael D Hill; Thomas A Tomsick; Joseph P Broderick; Andrew M Demchuk Journal: Stroke Date: 2015-03-19 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Mayank Goyal; Alain Bonafe; Hans-Christoph Diener; Elad I Levy; Vitor M Pereira; Gregory W Albers; Christophe Cognard; David J Cohen; Werner Hacke; Olav Jansen; Tudor G Jovin; Heinrich P Mattle; Raul G Nogueira; Adnan H Siddiqui; Dileep R Yavagal; Blaise W Baxter; Thomas G Devlin; Demetrius K Lopes; Vivek K Reddy; Richard du Mesnil de Rochemont; Oliver C Singer; Reza Jahan Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-04-17 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Bruce C V Campbell; Peter J Mitchell; Timothy J Kleinig; Helen M Dewey; Leonid Churilov; Nawaf Yassi; Bernard Yan; Richard J Dowling; Mark W Parsons; Thomas J Oxley; Teddy Y Wu; Mark Brooks; Marion A Simpson; Ferdinand Miteff; Christopher R Levi; Martin Krause; Timothy J Harrington; Kenneth C Faulder; Brendan S Steinfort; Miriam Priglinger; Timothy Ang; Rebecca Scroop; P Alan Barber; Ben McGuinness; Tissa Wijeratne; Thanh G Phan; Winston Chong; Ronil V Chandra; Christopher F Bladin; Monica Badve; Henry Rice; Laetitia de Villiers; Henry Ma; Patricia M Desmond; Geoffrey A Donnan; Stephen M Davis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Randall T Higashida; Anthony J Furlan; Heidi Roberts; Thomas Tomsick; Buddy Connors; John Barr; William Dillon; Steven Warach; Joseph Broderick; Barbara Tilley; David Sacks Journal: Stroke Date: 2003-07-17 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: David S Liebeskind; Thomas A Tomsick; Lydia D Foster; Sharon D Yeatts; Janice Carrozzella; Andrew M Demchuk; Tudor G Jovin; Pooja Khatri; Ruediger von Kummer; Rebecca M Sugg; Osama O Zaidat; Syed I Hussain; Mayank Goyal; Bijoy K Menon; Firas Al Ali; Bernard Yan; Yuko Y Palesch; Joseph P Broderick Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-01-28 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Mark Jenkinson; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Mark W Woolrich; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2011-09-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: A Potreck; S Loebel; J Pfaff; L Østergaard; K Mouridsen; A Radbruch; M Bendszus; S Mundiyanapurath Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Christopher W Haddad; Karen Drukker; Rebecca Gullett; Timothy J Carroll; Gregory A Christoforidis; Maryellen L Giger Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2018-01-04
Authors: A Potreck; E Scheidecker; C S Weyland; U Neuberger; C Herweh; M A Möhlenbruch; M Chen; S Nagel; M Bendszus; F Seker Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Fatih Seker; Johannes Pfaff; Arne Potreck; Sibu Mundiyanapurath; Peter A Ringleb; Martin Bendszus; Markus A Möhlenbruch Journal: Brain Behav Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 2.708
Authors: Ivana Galinovic; Elena Kochova; Ahmed Khalil; Kersten Villringer; Sophie K Piper; Jochen B Fiebach Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 3.240