Background and Purpose-Diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) has become a commonly used imaging modality in stroke centers. The value of this method as a routine procedure is still being discussed. In previous studies, CT was always performed before DWI. Therefore, infarct progression could be a reason for the better result in DWI. Methods-All hyperacute (Ͻ6 hours) stroke patients admitted to our emergency department with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score Ͼ3 were prospectively randomized for the order in which CT and MRI were performed. Five stroke experts and 4 residents blinded to clinical data judged stroke signs and lesion size on the images. To determine the interrater variability, we calculated values for both rating groups. Results-A total of 50 patients with ischemic stroke and 4 patients with transient symptoms of acute stroke (median NIHSS score, 11; range, 3 to 27) were analyzed. Of the 50 patients, 55% were examined with DWI first. The mean delay from symptom onset until CT was 180 minutes; that from symptom onset until DWI was 189 minutes. The mean delay between DWI and CT was 30 minutes. The sensitivity of infarct detection by the experts was significantly better when based on DWI (CT/DWI, 61/91%). Accuracy was 91% when based on DWI (CT, 61%). Interrater variability of lesion detection was also significantly better for DWI (CT/DWI, ϭ0.51/0.84). The assessment of lesion extent was less homogeneous on CT (CT/DWI, ϭ0.38/0.62). The differences between the 2 modalities were stronger in the residents' ratings (CT/DWI: sensitivity, 46/81%; ϭ0.38/0.76). Conclusions-CT and DWI performed with the same delay after onset of ischemic stroke resulted in significant differences in diagnostic accuracy. DWI gives good interrater homogeneity and has a substantially better sensitivity and accuracy than CT even if the raters have limited experience.

No abstract

MRI can be safely performed in patients with implanted neurostimulation systems with the tested deep brain leads connected to an IPG (ITREL II and 3), with running parameters. No heat induction was detected, and the experimentally measured induced voltage did not seem to harm the patients. Only the reed switch of the IPGs was activated; the other parameters remained unchanged. Further investigations must be performed to study the local electrical effects in larger plate electrodes; these effects might cause slight discomfort. There is no danger with any type of electrode during MRI examinations if the electrodes lie outside the region of interest. These observations are restricted to the tested devices. A conscientious estimation of the risks and benefits of MRI for patients with implanted devices is recommended. If the type of device is not known to the examiner, MRI should still be considered to be contraindicated.