C C McDougall1,2,3,4,5, L Chan4, S Sachan4, J Guo4, R G Sah1,4,5, B K Menon1,2,3,4,5, A M Demchuk1,3,4,5, M D Hill1,3,4,5, N D Forkert2,3,4,6, C D d'Esterre1,2,3,4,5, P A Barber7,2,3,5. 1. From the Department of Clinical Neurosciences (C.C.M., R.G.S., B.K.M., A.M.D., M.D.H., C.D.d., P.A.B.), Calgary Stroke Program. 2. Department of Radiology (C.C.M., B.K.M., N.D.F., C.D.d.E., P.A.B.). 3. Hotchkiss Brain Institute (C.C.M., B.K.M., A.M.D., M.D.H., N.D.F., C.C.d.E., P.A.B.). 4. Department of Clinical Neurosciences (C.C.M., L.C., S.S., J.G., R.G.S., B.K.M., A.M.D., M.D.H., N.D.F., C.C.d.E.). 5. Seaman Family Centre (C.C.M., R.G.S., B.K.M., A.M.D., M.D.H., C.D.d.E., P.A.B.), Foothills Medical Centre, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 6. Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute (N.D.F.), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 7. From the Department of Clinical Neurosciences (C.C.M., R.G.S., B.K.M., A.M.D., M.D.H., C.D.d., P.A.B.), Calgary Stroke Program pabarber@ucalgary.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Infarct core volume measurement using CTP (CT perfusion) is a mainstay paradigm for stroke treatment decision-making. Yet, there are several downfalls with cine CTP technology that can be overcome by adopting the simple perfusion reconstruction algorithm (SPIRAL) derived from multiphase CTA. We compare SPIRAL with CTP parameters for the prediction of 24-hour infarction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two patients had admission NCCT, multiphase CTA, CTP, and 24-hour DWI. All patients had successful/quality reperfusion. Patient-level and cohort-level receiver operator characteristic curves were generated to determine accuracy. A 10-fold cross-validation was performed on the cohort-level data. Infarct core volume was compared for SPIRAL, CTP-time-to-maximum, and final DWI by Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: When we compared the accuracy in patients with early and late reperfusion for cortical GM and WM, there was no significant difference at the patient level (0.83 versus 0.84, respectively), cohort level (0.82 versus 0.81, respectively), or the cross-validation (0.77 versus 0.74, respectively). In the patient-level receiver operating characteristic analysis, the SPIRAL map had a slightly higher, though nonsignificant (P < .05), average receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (cortical GM/WM, r = 0.82; basal ganglia = 0.79, respectively) than both the CTP-time-to-maximum (cortical GM/WM = 0.82; basal ganglia = 0.78, respectively) and CTP-CBF (cortical GM/WM = 0.74; basal ganglia = 0.78, respectively) parameter maps. The same relationship was observed at the cohort level. The Bland-Altman plot limits of agreement for SPIRAL and time-to-maximum infarct volume were similar compared with 24-hour DWI. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that perfusion maps generated from a temporally sampled helical CTA are an accurate surrogate for infarct core.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Infarct core volume measurement using CTP (CT perfusion) is a mainstay paradigm for stroke treatment decision-making. Yet, there are several downfalls with cine CTP technology that can be overcome by adopting the simple perfusion reconstruction algorithm (SPIRAL) derived from multiphase CTA. We compare SPIRAL with CTP parameters for the prediction of 24-hour infarction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two patients had admission NCCT, multiphase CTA, CTP, and 24-hour DWI. All patients had successful/quality reperfusion. Patient-level and cohort-level receiver operator characteristic curves were generated to determine accuracy. A 10-fold cross-validation was performed on the cohort-level data. Infarct core volume was compared for SPIRAL, CTP-time-to-maximum, and final DWI by Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: When we compared the accuracy in patients with early and late reperfusion for cortical GM and WM, there was no significant difference at the patient level (0.83 versus 0.84, respectively), cohort level (0.82 versus 0.81, respectively), or the cross-validation (0.77 versus 0.74, respectively). In the patient-level receiver operating characteristic analysis, the SPIRAL map had a slightly higher, though nonsignificant (P < .05), average receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (cortical GM/WM, r = 0.82; basal ganglia = 0.79, respectively) than both the CTP-time-to-maximum (cortical GM/WM = 0.82; basal ganglia = 0.78, respectively) and CTP-CBF (cortical GM/WM = 0.74; basal ganglia = 0.78, respectively) parameter maps. The same relationship was observed at the cohort level. The Bland-Altman plot limits of agreement for SPIRAL and time-to-maximum infarct volume were similar compared with 24-hour DWI. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that perfusion maps generated from a temporally sampled helical CTA are an accurate surrogate for infarct core.
Authors: Meaghan Reid; Akinrinola O Famuyide; Nils D Forkert; Aron Sahand Talai; James W Evans; Amith Sitaram; Moiz Hafeez; Mohamed Najm; Bijoy K Menon; Andrew Demchuk; Mayank Goyal; Rani Gupta Sah; Christopher D d'Esterre; Philip Barber Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2018-08-21 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Raul G Nogueira; Ashutosh P Jadhav; Diogo C Haussen; Alain Bonafe; Ronald F Budzik; Parita Bhuva; Dileep R Yavagal; Marc Ribo; Christophe Cognard; Ricardo A Hanel; Cathy A Sila; Ameer E Hassan; Monica Millan; Elad I Levy; Peter Mitchell; Michael Chen; Joey D English; Qaisar A Shah; Frank L Silver; Vitor M Pereira; Brijesh P Mehta; Blaise W Baxter; Michael G Abraham; Pedro Cardona; Erol Veznedaroglu; Frank R Hellinger; Lei Feng; Jawad F Kirmani; Demetrius K Lopes; Brian T Jankowitz; Michael R Frankel; Vincent Costalat; Nirav A Vora; Albert J Yoo; Amer M Malik; Anthony J Furlan; Marta Rubiera; Amin Aghaebrahim; Jean-Marc Olivot; Wondwossen G Tekle; Ryan Shields; Todd Graves; Roger J Lewis; Wade S Smith; David S Liebeskind; Jeffrey L Saver; Tudor G Jovin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-11-11 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Matthew S Davenport; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Jonathan R Dillman; Richard H Cohan; Elaine M Caoili; James H Ellis Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rani Gupta Sah; Christopher D d'Esterre; Michael D Hill; Moiz Hafeez; Sana Tariq; Nils D Forkert; Andrew M Demchuk; Mayank Goyal; Philip A Barber Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: Kamil Zeleňák; Antonín Krajina; Lukas Meyer; Jens Fiehler; Daniel Behme; Deniz Bulja; Jildaz Caroff; Amar Ajay Chotai; Valerio Da Ros; Jean-Christophe Gentric; Jeremy Hofmeister; Omar Kass-Hout; Özcan Kocatürk; Jeremy Lynch; Ernesto Pearson; Ivan Vukasinovic Journal: Life (Basel) Date: 2021-05-27