BACKGROUND: Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) assesses early ischemic change on non-contrast CT (NCCT). We hypothesised that assessing ASPECTS regions on CT Perfusion (CTP) rather than NCCT would improve inter-rater agreement and prognostic accuracy, particularly in patients presenting early after stroke onset. METHODS: Ischemic stroke patients treated with intravenous alteplase from 2009 to 2014 at our institution were included in this study. Inter-rater agreement and prognostic accuracy of ASPECTS across modalities were analysed by the time between stroke onset and initial NCCT, dichotomized 1st quartile versus quartiles 2-4, referred to as epochs. ASPECTS was assessed by 2 independent raters, blinded to stroke onset time, with agreement determined by weighted kappa (κw). Prognostic accuracy for favourable outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) was assessed using the receiver-operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 227 participants were included. There was significant time-by-CT modality interaction for ASPECTS, p < 0.0001. The inter-rater agreement of ASPECTS on NCCT significantly increased as onset to CT time increased (κw epoch 1 = 0.76 vs. κw epoch 2-4 = 0.89, p = 0.04), whereas agreement using CTP parameters was stable across epochs. Inter-rater agreement for CTP-ASPECTS was significantly higher than NCCT in early epoch: Tmax κw = 0.96, p = 0.002; cerebral blood volume (CBV) κw = 0.95, p = 0.003; cerebral blood flow (CBF) κw = 0.94, p = 0.006, with no differences in the later epochs. Prognostic accuracy of ASPECTS on NCCT in epoch 1 were (area under the ROC curves [AUC] = 0.52, 95% CI 0.48-0.56), CBV (AUC = 0.55, 95% CI 0.42-0.69, CBF (AUC = 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.71) and Tmax (AUC = 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.75), p = 0.46 between modalities. CONCLUSIONS: CTP can improve reliability when assessing the extent of ischemic changes, particularly in patients imaged early after stroke onset.
BACKGROUND:Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) assesses early ischemic change on non-contrast CT (NCCT). We hypothesised that assessing ASPECTS regions on CT Perfusion (CTP) rather than NCCT would improve inter-rater agreement and prognostic accuracy, particularly in patients presenting early after stroke onset. METHODS:Ischemic strokepatients treated with intravenous alteplase from 2009 to 2014 at our institution were included in this study. Inter-rater agreement and prognostic accuracy of ASPECTS across modalities were analysed by the time between stroke onset and initial NCCT, dichotomized 1st quartile versus quartiles 2-4, referred to as epochs. ASPECTS was assessed by 2 independent raters, blinded to stroke onset time, with agreement determined by weighted kappa (κw). Prognostic accuracy for favourable outcome (modified Rankin Scale 0-2) was assessed using the receiver-operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 227 participants were included. There was significant time-by-CT modality interaction for ASPECTS, p < 0.0001. The inter-rater agreement of ASPECTS on NCCT significantly increased as onset to CT time increased (κw epoch 1 = 0.76 vs. κw epoch 2-4 = 0.89, p = 0.04), whereas agreement using CTP parameters was stable across epochs. Inter-rater agreement for CTP-ASPECTS was significantly higher than NCCT in early epoch: Tmax κw = 0.96, p = 0.002; cerebral blood volume (CBV) κw = 0.95, p = 0.003; cerebral blood flow (CBF) κw = 0.94, p = 0.006, with no differences in the later epochs. Prognostic accuracy of ASPECTS on NCCT in epoch 1 were (area under the ROC curves [AUC] = 0.52, 95% CI 0.48-0.56), CBV (AUC = 0.55, 95% CI 0.42-0.69, CBF (AUC = 0.58, 95% CI 0.46-0.71) and Tmax (AUC = 0.62, 95% CI 0.49-0.75), p = 0.46 between modalities. CONCLUSIONS:CTP can improve reliability when assessing the extent of ischemic changes, particularly in patients imaged early after stroke onset.
Authors: James E Siegler; Steven R Messé; Heidi Sucharew; Scott E Kasner; Tapan Mehta; Niraj Arora; Amy K Starosciak; Felipe De Los Rios La Rosa; Natasha R Barnhill; Akshitkumar M Mistry; Kishan Patel; Salman Assad; Amjad Tarboosh; Katarina Dakay; Jeff Wagner; Alicia Bennett; Bharathi Jagadeesan; Christopher Streib; Stewart A Weber; Rohan Chitale; John J Volpi; Stephan A Mayer; Shadi Yaghi; Mahesh V Jayaraman; Pooja Khatri; Eva A Mistry Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2019-11-24 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: H Raoult; M V Lassalle; B Parat; C Rousseau; F Eugène; S Vannier; S Evain; A Le Bras; T Ronziere; J C Ferre; J Y Gauvrit; B Laviolle Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Antonio Muscari; Luca Faccioli; Maria Vittoria Lega; Andrea Lorusso; Marco Pastore Trossello; Giovanni M Puddu; Luca Spinardi; Marco Zoli Journal: Neurol Sci Date: 2019-01-19 Impact factor: 3.307
Authors: V K Sundaram; J Goldstein; D Wheelwright; A Aggarwal; P S Pawha; A Doshi; J T Fifi; R De Leacy; J Mocco; J Puig; K Nael Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-11-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: C C McDougall; L Chan; S Sachan; J Guo; R G Sah; B K Menon; A M Demchuk; M D Hill; N D Forkert; C D d'Esterre; P A Barber Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: A Potreck; C S Weyland; F Seker; U Neuberger; C Herweh; A Hoffmann; S Nagel; M Bendszus; M A Mutke Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2021-10-28 Impact factor: 3.649