Nuno Martins1, Ana Aires2,3, Beatriz Mendez4, Sandra Boned5,6, Marta Rubiera5,6, Alejandro Tomasello7, Pilar Coscojuela7, David Hernandez7, Marián Muchada5,6, David Rodríguez-Luna5,6, Noelia Rodríguez5,6, Jesús M Juega5,6, Jorge Pagola5,6, Carlos A Molina5,6, Marc Ribó5,6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Hospital Fernando Fonseca, Amadora, Portugal. 2. Department of Neurology, São João Hospital Center, Porto, Portugal. 3. Department of Clinical Neurosciences and Mental Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 4. Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía, Mexico City, Mexico. 5. Stroke Unit, Department of Neurology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Vall d'Hebron Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain. 6. Departament de Medicina, Universitat Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. 7. Department of Neuroradiology, Vall d'Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Determining the size of infarct extent is crucial to elect patients for reperfusion therapies. Computed tomography perfusion (CTP) based on cerebral blood volume may overestimate infarct core on admission and consequently include ghost infarct core (GIC) in a definitive lesional area. PURPOSE: Our goal was to confirm and better characterize the GIC phenomenon using CTP cerebral blood flow (CBF) as the reference parameter to determine infarct core. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis of consecutive thrombectomies of middle cerebral or intracranial internal carotid artery occlusions considering noncontrast CT Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score ≥6 in patients with pretreatment CTP. We used the RAPID® software to measure admission infarct core based on initial CBF. The final infarct was extracted from follow-up CT. GIC was defined as initial core minus final infarct > 10 mL. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were included. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 18 (13-20), the median time from symptoms to CTP was 188 (67-288) min, and the recanalization rate (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score 2b, 2c, or 3) was 83%. Twenty patients (16%) presented with GIC. GIC was associated with shorter time to recanalization (150 [105-291] vs. 255 [163-367] min, p = 0.05) and larger initial CBF core volume (38 [26-59] vs. 6 [0-27] mL, p < 0.001). An adjusted logistic regression model identified time to recanalization < 302 min (OR 4.598, 95% CI 1.143-18.495, p = 0.032) and initial infarct volume (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.001-1.019, p = 0.032) as independent predictors of GIC. At 24 h, clinical improvement was more frequent in patients with GIC (80 vs. 49%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: CTP CBF < 30% may overestimate infarct core volume, especially in patients imaged in the very early time window and with fast complete reperfusion. Therefore, the CTP CBF technique may exclude patients who would benefit from endovascular treatment.
BACKGROUND: Determining the size of infarct extent is crucial to elect patients for reperfusion therapies. Computed tomography perfusion (CTP) based on cerebral blood volume may overestimate infarct core on admission and consequently include ghost infarct core (GIC) in a definitive lesional area. PURPOSE: Our goal was to confirm and better characterize the GIC phenomenon using CTP cerebral blood flow (CBF) as the reference parameter to determine infarct core. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis of consecutive thrombectomies of middle cerebral or intracranial internal carotid artery occlusions considering noncontrast CT Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score ≥6 in patients with pretreatment CTP. We used the RAPID® software to measure admission infarct core based on initial CBF. The final infarct was extracted from follow-up CT. GIC was defined as initial core minus final infarct > 10 mL. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients were included. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 18 (13-20), the median time from symptoms to CTP was 188 (67-288) min, and the recanalization rate (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score 2b, 2c, or 3) was 83%. Twenty patients (16%) presented with GIC. GIC was associated with shorter time to recanalization (150 [105-291] vs. 255 [163-367] min, p = 0.05) and larger initial CBF core volume (38 [26-59] vs. 6 [0-27] mL, p < 0.001). An adjusted logistic regression model identified time to recanalization < 302 min (OR 4.598, 95% CI 1.143-18.495, p = 0.032) and initial infarct volume (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.001-1.019, p = 0.032) as independent predictors of GIC. At 24 h, clinical improvement was more frequent in patients with GIC (80 vs. 49%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: CTP CBF < 30% may overestimate infarct core volume, especially in patients imaged in the very early time window and with fast complete reperfusion. Therefore, the CTP CBF technique may exclude patients who would benefit from endovascular treatment.
Authors: Jens Fiehler; Christophe Cognard; Mauro Gallitelli; Olav Jansen; Adam Kobayashi; Heinrich P Mattle; Keith W Muir; Mikael Mazighi; Karl Schaller; Peter D Schellinger Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2016-08 Impact factor: 5.266
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: Jelle Demeestere; Carlos Garcia-Esperon; Pablo Garcia-Bermejo; Fouke Ombelet; Patrick McElduff; Andrew Bivard; Mark Parsons; Christopher Levi Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Karin Kremenova; Michal Holesta; Tomas Peisker; David Girsa; Jiri Weichet; Jiří Lukavsky; Hana Malikova Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2020-10
Authors: Miou S Koopman; Jan W Hoving; Henk van Voorst; Jasper D Daems; Daan Peerlings; Erik Buskens; Hester F Lingsma; Henk A Marquering; Hugo Wam de Jong; Olvert A Berkhemer; Wim H van Zwam; Marianne Aa van Walderveen; Ido van den Wijngaard; Aad van der Lugt; Diederik Wj Dippel; Albert J Yoo; Bruce Cv Campbell; Wolfgang G Kunz; Charles Blm Majoie; Bart J Emmer Journal: Eur Stroke J Date: 2022-04-21
Authors: Amrou Sarraj; Bruce C V Campbell; Soren Christensen; Clark W Sitton; Shekhar Khanpara; Roy F Riascos; Deep Pujara; Faris Shaker; Gagan Sharma; Maarten G Lansberg; Gregory W Albers Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 11.800
Authors: Lee Sze Foo; George Harston; Amit Mehndiratta; Wun-She Yap; Yan Chai Hum; Khin Wee Lai; Shahizon Azura Mohamed Mukari; Faizah Mohd Zaki; Yee Kai Tee Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-08
Authors: S Nannoni; F Ricciardi; D Strambo; G Sirimarco; M Wintermark; V Dunet; P Michel Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-28 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ali Z Nomani; Joseph Kamtchum Tatuene; Jeremy L Rempel; Thomas Jeerakathil; Ian R Winship; Khurshid A Khan; Brian H Buck; Ashfaq Shuaib; Glen C Jickling Journal: Neurology Date: 2021-10-04 Impact factor: 9.910