Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Purpose Flat-panel detector computed tomography (FDCT) is increasingly used in (neuro)interventional angiography suites. This study aimed to compare FDCT perfusion (FDCTP) with conventional multidetector computed tomography perfusion (MDCTP) in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods In this study, 19 patients with large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation who had undergone mechanical thrombectomy, baseline MDCTP and pre-interventional FDCTP were included. Hypoperfused tissue volumes were manually segmented on time to maximum (Tmax) and time to peak (TTP) maps based on the maximum visible extent. Absolute and relative thresholds were applied to the maximum visible extent on Tmax and relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) maps to delineate penumbra volumes and volumes with a high likelihood of irreversible infarcted tissue (“core”). Standard comparative metrics were used to evaluate the performance of FDCTP. Results Strong correlations and robust agreement were found between manually segmented volumes on MDCTP and FDCTP Tmax maps (r = 0.85, 95% CI 0.65–0.94, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.85, 95% CI 0.69–0.94) and TTP maps (r = 0.91, 95% CI 0.78–0.97, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.90, 95% CI 0.78–0.96); however, direct quantitative comparisons using thresholding showed lower correlations and weaker agreement (MDCTP versus FDCTP Tmax 6 s: r = 0.35, 95% CI −0.13–0.69, p = 0.15; ICC = 0.32, 95% CI 0.07–0.75). Normalization techniques improved results for Tmax maps (r = 0.78, 95% CI 0.50–0.91, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.77, 95% CI 0.55–0.91). Bland-Altman analyses indicated a slight systematic underestimation of FDCTP Tmax maximum visible extent volumes and slight overestimation of FDCTP TTP maximum visible extent volumes compared to MDCTP. Conclusion FDCTP and MDCTP provide qualitatively comparable volumetric results on Tmax and TTP maps; however, direct quantitative measurements of infarct core and hypoperfused tissue volumes showed lower correlations and agreement.
Purpose Flat-panel detector computed tomography (FDCT) is increasingly used in (neuro)interventional angiography suites. This study aimed to compare FDCT perfusion (FDCTP) with conventional multidetector computed tomography perfusion (MDCTP) in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Methods In this study, 19 patients with large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation who had undergone mechanical thrombectomy, baseline MDCTP and pre-interventional FDCTP were included. Hypoperfused tissue volumes were manually segmented on time to maximum (Tmax) and time to peak (TTP) maps based on the maximum visible extent. Absolute and relative thresholds were applied to the maximum visible extent on Tmax and relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) maps to delineate penumbra volumes and volumes with a high likelihood of irreversible infarcted tissue (“core”). Standard comparative metrics were used to evaluate the performance of FDCTP. Results Strong correlations and robust agreement were found between manually segmented volumes on MDCTP and FDCTP Tmax maps (r = 0.85, 95% CI 0.65–0.94, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.85, 95% CI 0.69–0.94) and TTP maps (r = 0.91, 95% CI 0.78–0.97, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.90, 95% CI 0.78–0.96); however, direct quantitative comparisons using thresholding showed lower correlations and weaker agreement (MDCTP versus FDCTP Tmax 6 s: r = 0.35, 95% CI −0.13–0.69, p = 0.15; ICC = 0.32, 95% CI 0.07–0.75). Normalization techniques improved results for Tmax maps (r = 0.78, 95% CI 0.50–0.91, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.77, 95% CI 0.55–0.91). Bland-Altman analyses indicated a slight systematic underestimation of FDCTP Tmax maximum visible extent volumes and slight overestimation of FDCTP TTP maximum visible extent volumes compared to MDCTP. Conclusion FDCTP and MDCTP provide qualitatively comparable volumetric results on Tmax and TTP maps; however, direct quantitative measurements of infarct core and hypoperfused tissue volumes showed lower correlations and agreement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.