Assessment of computed tomography perfusion RAPID estimated core volume accuracy in patients following thrombectomy.

IF 0.5 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Current Journal of Neurology Pub Date : 2022-01-05 DOI:10.18502/cjn.v21i1.9356
Riwaj Bhagat, Allison Muha, Kerri Remmel, Wei Liu
{"title":"Assessment of computed tomography perfusion RAPID estimated core volume accuracy in patients following thrombectomy.","authors":"Riwaj Bhagat, Allison Muha, Kerri Remmel, Wei Liu","doi":"10.18502/cjn.v21i1.9356","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) maps ischemic core volume (CV) and penumbra following a stroke; however, its accuracy in early symptom onset is not well studied. We compared the accuracy of CTP RAPID estimated CV with diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) infarct volume (IV) in patients following thrombectomy. <b>Methods:</b> Charts of anterior circulation large vessel occlusion post-thrombectomy cases with thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b/3 reperfusion from 2017 to 2019 were reviewed. CTP time was dichotomized as 0-3 hours and ≥ 3 hours from the last known normal (LKN) cognition. The volumetric difference (VD), defined as DWI IV minus CTP CV, core volume overestimation (CVO), defined as CTP CV minus DWI IV and Alberta stroke programme early CT score (ASPECTS) were calculated. Large CV was defined as ≥ 50 ml CV. Modified Rankin Score (mRS) at 90 days were reviewed. We performed independent sample t-test and Spearman correlation coefficient test. <b>Results:</b> Total cases (n) were 61. In < 3 hours window from LKN (n = 27), the mean VD was 58.3 ± 0.1 ml (P = 0.990) and CVO (n = 11; 40.7%) was 39.6 ± 35.7 ml (P = 0.008). Mean large CV (n = 8) was 78.3 ± 25.4 ml with median ASPECTS of 8 [interquartile range (IQR) = 6.5-9.0] and median mRS at 90 days of 2 (IQR = 0.8-3.3). In ≥ 3 hours window from LKN (n = 34), CVO (n = 5) was uncommon and large CV had median mRS at 90 days of 5 (IQR = 4.0-6.0). <b>Conclusion:</b> CTP more frequently overestimates CV in patients who are < 3 hours from LKN. The treated patients with large CV in < 3 hours and > 3 hours had good and poor functional outcomes, respectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":40077,"journal":{"name":"Current Journal of Neurology","volume":"21 1","pages":"17-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9527863/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Journal of Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/cjn.v21i1.9356","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Computed Tomography Perfusion (CTP) maps ischemic core volume (CV) and penumbra following a stroke; however, its accuracy in early symptom onset is not well studied. We compared the accuracy of CTP RAPID estimated CV with diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) infarct volume (IV) in patients following thrombectomy. Methods: Charts of anterior circulation large vessel occlusion post-thrombectomy cases with thrombolysis in cerebral infarction (TICI) 2b/3 reperfusion from 2017 to 2019 were reviewed. CTP time was dichotomized as 0-3 hours and ≥ 3 hours from the last known normal (LKN) cognition. The volumetric difference (VD), defined as DWI IV minus CTP CV, core volume overestimation (CVO), defined as CTP CV minus DWI IV and Alberta stroke programme early CT score (ASPECTS) were calculated. Large CV was defined as ≥ 50 ml CV. Modified Rankin Score (mRS) at 90 days were reviewed. We performed independent sample t-test and Spearman correlation coefficient test. Results: Total cases (n) were 61. In < 3 hours window from LKN (n = 27), the mean VD was 58.3 ± 0.1 ml (P = 0.990) and CVO (n = 11; 40.7%) was 39.6 ± 35.7 ml (P = 0.008). Mean large CV (n = 8) was 78.3 ± 25.4 ml with median ASPECTS of 8 [interquartile range (IQR) = 6.5-9.0] and median mRS at 90 days of 2 (IQR = 0.8-3.3). In ≥ 3 hours window from LKN (n = 34), CVO (n = 5) was uncommon and large CV had median mRS at 90 days of 5 (IQR = 4.0-6.0). Conclusion: CTP more frequently overestimates CV in patients who are < 3 hours from LKN. The treated patients with large CV in < 3 hours and > 3 hours had good and poor functional outcomes, respectively.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
计算机断层扫描灌注快速评估取栓后患者核心容量的准确性
背景:计算机断层扫描灌注(CTP)绘制中风后缺血核心体积(CV)和半影;然而,它在早期症状发作中的准确性还没有得到很好的研究。我们比较了血栓切除术后患者CTP RAPID估计的CV与弥散加权成像(DWI)梗死体积(IV)的准确性。方法:回顾2017年至2019年脑梗死(TICI)2b/3再灌注血栓切除后前循环大血管闭塞病例的图表。CTP时间从最后一次已知的正常(LKN)认知开始分为0-3小时和≥3小时。计算体积差(VD)(定义为DWI IV减去CTP CV)、核心体积高估(CVO)(定义为由CTP CV减去DWI IV)和艾伯塔省卒中计划早期CT评分(ASPECTS)。大CV定义为≥50 ml CV。回顾90天时的改良Rankin评分(mRS)。我们进行了独立样本t检验和Spearman相关系数检验。结果:共61例。在LKN(n=27)的<3小时窗口期内,平均VD为58.3±0.1 ml(P=0.990),CVO(n=11;40.7%)为39.6±35.7 ml(P=0.008)。平均大CV(n=8)为78.3±25.4 ml,中位ASPECTS为8[四分位间距(IQR)=6.5-9.0],90天时的中位mRS为2(IQR=0.8-3.3),CVO(n=5)不常见,大CV在5天的90天时具有中位mRS(IQR=4.0-6.0)。结论:在距离LKN<3小时的患者中,CTP更经常高估CV。在<3小时和>3小时内具有大CV的治疗患者的功能结果分别良好和较差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Current Journal of Neurology
Current Journal of Neurology CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
30
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Assessment of median nerve with magnetic resonance neurography in cases with carpal tunnel syndrome and controls. Diagnostic potential of lncRNAs-ANRIL and MIAT in the blood of patients with cerebral venous thrombosis. Investigation of pregnancy tendency, reproductive characteristics, and disability in women with multiple sclerosis: A secondary data analysis of the national registry in Iran. Mass-like presentation of primary angiitis of the central nervous system: A clinical note. Meralgia paresthetica treated with temporary peripheral nerve stimulation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1