Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Stroke. 2018 Oct;49(10):2345-2352. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.021952.

Estimation of Ischemic Core Volume Using Computed Tomographic Perfusion.

Author information

1
From the Department of Radiology (Y.S., B.N.D., A.H.D., K.N.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, NY.
2
Department of Neurology (J.T.F., S.T., D.W.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, NY.
3
Department of Neurosurgery (J.T.F., J.M.), Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York City, NY.

Abstract

Background and Purpose- Estimation of infarction based on computed tomographic perfusion (CTP) has been challenging, mainly because of noise associated with CTP data. The Bayesian method is a robust probabilistic method that minimizes effects of oscillation, tracer delay, and noise during residue function estimation compared with other deconvolution methods. This study compares CTP-estimated ischemic core volume calculated by the Bayesian method and by the commonly used block-circulant singular value deconvolution technique. Methods- Patients were included if they had (1) anterior circulation ischemic stroke, (2) baseline CTP, (3) successful recanalization defined by thrombolysis in cerebral infarction ‚Č•IIb, and (4) minimum infarction volume of >5 mL on follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). CTP data were processed with circulant singular value deconvolution and Bayesian methods. Two established CTP methods for estimation of ischemic core volume were applied: cerebral blood flow (CBF) method (relative CBF, <30% within the region of delay >2 seconds) and cerebral blood volume method (<2 mL per 100 g within the region of relative mean transit time >145%). Final infarct volume was determined on MRI (fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images). CTP and MRI-derived ischemic core volumes were compared by univariate and Bland-Altman analysis. Results- Among 35 patients included, the mean/median (mL) difference for CTP-estimated ischemic core volume against MRI was -4/-7 for Bayesian CBF ( P=0.770), 20/12 for Bayesian cerebral blood volume ( P=0.041), 21/10 for circulant singular value deconvolution CBF ( P=0.006), and 35/18 for circulant singular value deconvolution cerebral blood volume ( P<0.001). Among all methods, Bayesian CBF provided the narrowest limits of agreement (-28 to 19 mL) in comparison with MRI. Conclusions- Despite existing variabilities between CTP postprocessing methods, Bayesian postprocessing increases accuracy and limits variability in CTP estimation of ischemic core.

KEYWORDS:

computed tomography; follow-up studies; humans; infarction; magnetic resonance imaging; perfusion imaging

PMID:
30355089
DOI:
10.1161/STROKEAHA.118.021952
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center