Dataset Information

Effect of different thresholds for CT perfusion volumetric analysis on estimated ischemic core and penumbral volumes.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

This single-center study compared three threshold settings for automated analysis of the ischemic core (IC) and penumbral volumes using computed tomographic perfusion, and their accuracy for predicting final infarct volume (FIV) in patients with anterior circulation acute ischemic stroke (AIS).

Methods

Fifty-two consecutive AIS patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (November 2015-March 2018) were included. Perfusion images were retrospectively analyzed using a single CT Neuro perfusion application (syngo.via 4.1, Siemens Healthcare GmbH). Three threshold values (S1-S3) were derived from another commercial package (RAPID; iSchema View) (S1), up-to-date syngo.via default values (S2), and adapted values for syngo.via from a reference study (S3). The results were compared with FIV determined by non-contrast CT.

Results

The median IC volume (mL) was 24.6 (interquartile range: 13.7-58.1) with S1 and 30.1 (20.1-53.1) with S2/S3. After removing the contralateral hemisphere from the analysis, the median IC volume decreased by 1.33(0-3.14) with S1 versus 9.13 (6.24-14.82) with S2/S3. The median penumbral volume (mL) was 74.52 (49.64-131.91), 77.86 (46.56-99.23), and 173.23 (125.86-200.64) for S1, S2, and S3, respectively. Limiting analysis to the affected hemisphere, the penumbral volume decreased by 1.6 (0.13-9.02), 19.29 (12.59-26.52), and 58.33 mL (45.53-74.84) for S1, S2, and S3, respectively. The correlation between IC and FIV was highest in patients with successful recanalization (n = 34, r = 0.784 for S1; r = 0.797 for S2/S3).

Conclusion

Optimizing thresholds significantly improves the accuracy of estimated IC and penumbral volumes. Current recommended values produce diversified results. International guidelines based on larger multicenter studies should be established to support the standardization of volumetric analysis in clinical decision-making.

SUBMITTER: Karhi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8059822 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:In severe traumatic brain injury, cerebral perfusion pressure management based on cerebrovascular pressure reactivity index has the potential to provide a personalized treatment target to improve patient outcomes. So far, the methods have focused on identifying "one" autoregulation-guided cerebral perfusion pressure target-called "cerebral perfusion pressure optimal". We investigated whether a cerebral perfusion pressure autoregulation range-which uses a continuous estimation of the "lower" and "upper" cerebral perfusion pressure limits of cerebrovascular pressure autoregulation (assessed with pressure reactivity index)-has prognostic value. DESIGN:Single-center retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTING:The neurocritical care unit at a tertiary academic medical center. PATIENTS:Data from 729 severe traumatic brain injury patients admitted between 1996 and 2016 were used. Treatment was guided by controlling intracranial pressure and cerebral perfusion pressure according to a local protocol. INTERVENTIONS:None. METHODS AND MAIN RESULTS:Cerebral perfusion pressure-pressure reactivity index curves were fitted automatically using a previously published curve-fitting heuristic from the relationship between pressure reactivity index and cerebral perfusion pressure. The cerebral perfusion pressure values at which this "U-shaped curve" crossed the fixed threshold from intact to impaired pressure reactivity (pressure reactivity index = 0.3) were denoted automatically the "lower" and "upper" cerebral perfusion pressure limits of reactivity, respectively. The percentage of time with cerebral perfusion pressure below (%cerebral perfusion pressure < lower limit of reactivity), above (%cerebral perfusion pressure > upper limit of reactivity), or within these reactivity limits (%cerebral perfusion pressure within limits of reactivity) was calculated for each patient and compared across dichotomized Glasgow Outcome Scores. After adjusting for age, initial Glasgow Coma Scale, and mean intracranial pressure, percentage of time with cerebral perfusion pressure less than lower limit of reactivity was associated with unfavorable outcome (odds ratio %cerebral perfusion pressure < lower limit of reactivity, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06; p < 0.001) and mortality (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.04-1.08; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Individualized autoregulation-guided cerebral perfusion pressure management may be a plausible alternative to fixed cerebral perfusion pressure threshold management in severe traumatic brain injury patients. Prospective randomized research will help define which autoregulation-guided method is beneficial, safe, and most practical.

Project description:IntroductionComputed tomography perfusion (CTP) imaging has become an important tool in evaluating acute recanalization treatment candidates. Large clinical trials have successfully used RAPID automated imaging analysis software for quantifying ischemic core and penumbra, yet other commercially available software vendors are also on the market. We evaluated the possible difference in ischemic core and perfusion lesion volumes and the agreement rate of target mismatch between OLEA, MIStar, and Syngo.Via versus RAPID software in acute recanalization treatment candidates.Patients and methodsAll consecutive stroke-code patients with baseline CTP RAPID imaging at Helsinki University Hospital during 8/2018-9/2021 were included. Ischemic core was defined as cerebral blood flow <30% than the contralateral hemisphere and within the area of delay time (DT) >3s with MIStar. Perfusion lesion volume was defined as DT > 3 s (MIStar) and Tmax > 6 s with all other software. A perfusion mismatch ratio of ⩾1.8, a perfusion lesion volume of ⩾15 mL, and ischemic core <70 mL was defined as target mismatch. The mean pairwise differences of the core and perfusion lesion volumes between software were calculated using the Bland-Altman method and the agreement of target mismatch between software using the Pearson correlation.ResultsA total of 1606 patients had RAPID perfusion maps, 1222 of which had MIStar, 596 patients had OLEA, and 349 patients had Syngo.Via perfusion maps available. Each software was compared with simultaneously analyzed RAPID software. MIStar showed the smallest core difference compared with RAPID (-2 mL, confidence interval (CI) from -26 to 22), followed by OLEA (2 mL, CI from -33 to 38). Perfusion lesion volume differed least with MIStar (4 mL, CI from -62 to 71) in comparison with RAPID, followed by Syngo.Via (6 mL, CI from -94 to 106). MIStar had the best agreement rate with target mismatch of RAPID followed by OLEA and Syngo.Via.Discussion and conclusionComparison of RAPID with three other automated imaging analysis software showed variance in ischemic core and perfusion lesion volumes and in target mismatch.