OBJECTIVE: In patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) acute ischemic stroke (AIS), determinations of infarct size play a key role in the identification of candidates for endovascular stroke therapy (EVT). An accurate, automated method to quantify infarct at the time of presentation using widely available imaging modalities would improve screening for EVT. Here, the authors aimed to compare the performance of three measures of infarct core at presentation, including an automated method using machine learning. METHODS: Patients with LVO AIS who underwent successful EVT at four comprehensive stroke centers were identified. Patients were included if they underwent concurrent noncontrast head CT (NCHCT), CT angiography (CTA), and CT perfusion (CTP) with Rapid imaging at the time of presentation, and MRI 24 to 48 hours after reperfusion. NCHCT scans were analyzed using the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) graded by neuroradiology or neurology expert readers. CTA source images were analyzed using a previously described machine learning model named DeepSymNet (DSN). Final infarct volume (FIV) was determined from diffusion-weighted MRI sequences using manual segmentation. The primary outcome was the performance of the three infarct core measurements (NCHCT-ASPECTS, CTA with DSN, and CTP-Rapid) to predict FIV, which was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Among 76 patients with LVO AIS who underwent EVT and met inclusion criteria, the median age was 67 years (IQR 54-76 years), 45% were female, and 37% were White. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 16 (IQR 12-22), and the median NCHCT-ASPECTS on presentation was 8 (IQR 7-8). The median time between when the patient was last known to be well and arrival was 156 minutes (IQR 73-303 minutes), and between NCHCT/CTA/CTP to groin puncture was 73 minutes (IQR 54-81 minutes). The AUC was obtained at three different cutoff points: 10 ml, 30 ml, and 50 ml FIV. At the 50-ml FIV cutoff, the AUC of ASPECTS was 0.74; of CTP core volume, 0.72; and of DSN, 0.82. Differences in AUCs for the three predictors were not significant for the three FIV cutoffs. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients with LVO AIS in whom reperfusion was achieved, determinations of infarct core at presentation by NCHCT-ASPECTS and a machine learning model analyzing CTA source images were equivalent to CTP in predicting FIV. These findings have suggested that the information to accurately predict infarct core in patients with LVO AIS was present in conventional imaging modalities (NCHCT and CTA) and accessible by machine learning methods.
OBJECTIVE: In patients with large-vessel occlusion (LVO) acute ischemic stroke (AIS), determinations of infarct size play a key role in the identification of candidates for endovascular stroke therapy (EVT). An accurate, automated method to quantify infarct at the time of presentation using widely available imaging modalities would improve screening for EVT. Here, the authors aimed to compare the performance of three measures of infarct core at presentation, including an automated method using machine learning. METHODS: Patients with LVO AIS who underwent successful EVT at four comprehensive stroke centers were identified. Patients were included if they underwent concurrent noncontrast head CT (NCHCT), CT angiography (CTA), and CT perfusion (CTP) with Rapid imaging at the time of presentation, and MRI 24 to 48 hours after reperfusion. NCHCT scans were analyzed using the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) graded by neuroradiology or neurology expert readers. CTA source images were analyzed using a previously described machine learning model named DeepSymNet (DSN). Final infarct volume (FIV) was determined from diffusion-weighted MRI sequences using manual segmentation. The primary outcome was the performance of the three infarct core measurements (NCHCT-ASPECTS, CTA with DSN, and CTP-Rapid) to predict FIV, which was measured using area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Among 76 patients with LVO AIS who underwent EVT and met inclusion criteria, the median age was 67 years (IQR 54-76 years), 45% were female, and 37% were White. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 16 (IQR 12-22), and the median NCHCT-ASPECTS on presentation was 8 (IQR 7-8). The median time between when the patient was last known to be well and arrival was 156 minutes (IQR 73-303 minutes), and between NCHCT/CTA/CTP to groin puncture was 73 minutes (IQR 54-81 minutes). The AUC was obtained at three different cutoff points: 10 ml, 30 ml, and 50 ml FIV. At the 50-ml FIV cutoff, the AUC of ASPECTS was 0.74; of CTP core volume, 0.72; and of DSN, 0.82. Differences in AUCs for the three predictors were not significant for the three FIV cutoffs. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of patients with LVO AIS in whom reperfusion was achieved, determinations of infarct core at presentation by NCHCT-ASPECTS and a machine learning model analyzing CTA source images were equivalent to CTP in predicting FIV. These findings have suggested that the information to accurately predict infarct core in patients with LVO AIS was present in conventional imaging modalities (NCHCT and CTA) and accessible by machine learning methods.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
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: Joonsang Yoo; Jin Wook Choi; Seong-Joon Lee; Ji Man Hong; Jeong-Ho Hong; Chang-Hyun Kim; Yong-Won Kim; Dong-Hun Kang; Yong-Sun Kim; Yang-Ha Hwang; Bruce Ovbiagele; Andrew M Demchuk; Jin Soo Lee; Sung-Il Sohn Journal: Stroke Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: A C Gupta; P W Schaefer; Z A Chaudhry; T M Leslie-Mazwi; R V Chandra; R G González; J A Hirsch; A J Yoo Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Friederike Austein; Christian Riedel; Tina Kerby; Johannes Meyne; Andreas Binder; Thomas Lindner; Monika Huhndorf; Fritz Wodarg; Olav Jansen Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-08-09 Impact factor: 7.914
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: Ralph R E G Geuskens; Jordi Borst; Marit Lucas; A M Merel Boers; Olvert A Berkhemer; Yvo B W E M Roos; Marianne A A van Walderveen; Sjoerd F M Jenniskens; Wim H van Zwam; Diederik W J Dippel; Charles B L M Majoie; Henk A Marquering Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: William A Copen; Albert J Yoo; Natalia S Rost; Lívia T Morais; Pamela W Schaefer; R Gilberto González; Ona Wu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Thomas Meinel; Christine Lerch; Urs Fischer; Morin Beyeler; Adnan Mujanovic; Christoph Kurmann; Bernhard Siepen; Adrian Scutelnic; Madlaine Müller; Martina Goeldlin; Nebiyat Filate Belachew; Tomas Dobrocky; Jan Gralla; David Seiffge; Simon Jung; Marcel Arnold; Roland Wiest; Raphael Meier; Johannes Kaesmacher Journal: Neurology Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 11.800