Comparison of automated infarct core volume measures between non-contrast computed tomography and perfusion imaging in acute stroke code patients evaluated for potential endovascular treatment

Introduction: Patients with small core infarction and salvageable penumbra are likely to benefit from endovascular treatment (EVT). As computed tomography perfusion imaging (CTP) is not always available 24/7 for patient selection, many patients are transferred to stroke centers for CTP. We compared automatically measured infarct core volume (NCCTcore) from the non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) with ischemic core volume (CTPcore) from CTP and the outcome of EVT to clarify if NCCTcore measurement alone is sufficient to identify patients that benefit from transfer to stroke centers for EVT. Patients and methods: We included all consecutive stroke-code patients imaged with both NCCT and CTP at Helsinki University Hospital during 9/2016-01/2018. NCCTcore and CTPcore volumes were automatically calculated from the acute NCCT images. Follow-up infarct volume (FIV) was measured from 24 h follow-up NCCT to evaluate efficacy of EVT. To study whether NCCTcore could be used to identify patients eligible to EVT, we subgrouped patients based on NCCTcore volumes (>50 mL and > 70 mL). Results: Out of 1743 patients, baseline NCCTcore, CTPcore and follow-up NCCT was available for 288 patients. Median time from symptom onset to baseline imaging was 74 min (IQR 52-118), and time to follow-up imaging 24.15 h (22.25-26.33). Baseline NCCTcore was 20 mL (10-42), CTPcore 4 mL (0-16), and FIV 5 mL (1-49). Out of 288 patients, 23 had NCCTcore > 70 mL and 26 had CTPcore > 70 mL. NCCTcore and CTPcore performed similarly well in predicting large FIV (>70 ml). Conclusion: NCCTcore is a promising tool to identify patients that are not eligible to EVT due to large ischemic cores at baseline imaging.Peer reviewe

Is infarct core growth linear? Infarct volume estimation by computed tomography perfusion imaging

Objectives Current guidelines for recanalization treatment are based on the time elapsed between symptom onset and treatment and visualization of existing penumbra in computed tomography perfusion (CTP) imaging. The time window for treatment options relies on linear growth of infarction although individual infarct growth rate may vary. We aimed to test how accurately the estimated follow-up infarct volume (eFIV) can be approximated by using a linear growth model based on CTP baseline imaging. If eFIV did not fall within the margins of +/- 19% of the follow-up infarct volume (FIV) measured at 24 h from non-enhanced computed tomography images, the results would imply that the infarct growth is not linear. Materials and Methods All consecutive endovascularly treated (EVT) patients from 11/2015 to 9/2019 at the Helsinki University Hospital with large vessel occlusion (LVO), CTP imaging, and known time of symptom onset were included. Infarct growth rate was assumed to be linear and calculated by dividing the ischemic core volume (CTPcore) by the time from symptom onset to baseline imaging. eFIV was calculated by multiplying the infarct growth rate with the time from baseline imaging to recanalization or in case of futile recanalization to follow-up imaging at 24 h, limited to the penumbra. Collateral flow was estimated by calculating hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR). Results Of 5234 patients, 48 had LVO, EVT, CTP imaging, and known time of symptom onset. In 40/48 patients (87%), infarct growth was not linear. HIR did not differ between patients with linear and nonlinear growth (p > .05). As expected, in over half of the patients with successful recanalization eFIV exceeded FIV. Conclusions Infarct growth was not linear in most patients and thus time elapsed from symptom onset and CTPcore appear to be insufficient parameters for clinical decision-making in EVT candidates.Peer reviewe

Comparative analysis of core and perfusion lesion volumes between commercially available computed tomography perfusion software

Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project has been granted funding for 2020 and 2021 from Helsinki University Hospital governmental subsidiary funds for clinical research (Y1249NEUR1), Maire Taponen foundation, South Carelia Medical Association, Orion foundation and Finnish Medical Association. Publisher Copyright: © European Stroke Organisation 2022.Introduction: Computed 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 methods: All 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 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. Results: A 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 conclusion: Comparison of RAPID with three other automated imaging analysis software showed variance in ischemic core and perfusion lesion volumes and in target mismatch.Peer reviewe