Cremers Charlotte H P, Dankbaar Jan Willem, Vergouwen Mervyn D I, Vos Pieter C, Bennink Edwin, Rinkel Gabriel J E, Velthuis Birgitta K, van der Schaaf Irene C
Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Room G03.232, Brain Center Rudolf Magnus Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA, Utrecht, The Netherlands,
Neuroradiology. 2015 May;57(5):469-74. doi: 10.1007/s00234-015-1486-8. Epub 2015 Jan 23.
Tracer delay-sensitive perfusion algorithms in CT perfusion (CTP) result in an overestimation of the extent of ischemia in thromboembolic stroke. In diagnosing delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH), delayed arrival of contrast due to vasospasm may also overestimate the extent of ischemia. We investigated the diagnostic accuracy of tracer delay-sensitive and tracer delay-insensitive algorithms for detecting DCI.
From a prospectively collected series of aSAH patients admitted between 2007-2011, we included patients with any clinical deterioration other than rebleeding within 21 days after SAH who underwent NCCT/CTP/CTA imaging. Causes of clinical deterioration were categorized into DCI and no DCI. CTP maps were calculated with tracer delay-sensitive and tracer delay-insensitive algorithms and were visually assessed for the presence of perfusion deficits by two independent observers with different levels of experience. The diagnostic value of both algorithms was calculated for both observers.
Seventy-one patients were included. For the experienced observer, the positive predictive values (PPVs) were 0.67 for the delay-sensitive and 0.66 for the delay-insensitive algorithm, and the negative predictive values (NPVs) were 0.73 and 0.74. For the less experienced observer, PPVs were 0.60 for both algorithms, and NPVs were 0.66 for the delay-sensitive and 0.63 for the delay-insensitive algorithm.
Test characteristics are comparable for tracer delay-sensitive and tracer delay-insensitive algorithms for the visual assessment of CTP in diagnosing DCI. This indicates that both algorithms can be used for this purpose.
CT灌注成像(CTP)中对示踪剂延迟敏感的灌注算法会高估血栓栓塞性卒中的缺血范围。在诊断动脉瘤性蛛网膜下腔出血(aSAH)后的迟发性脑缺血(DCI)时,血管痉挛导致的造影剂延迟到达也可能高估缺血范围。我们研究了示踪剂延迟敏感和示踪剂延迟不敏感算法检测DCI的诊断准确性。
从2007年至2011年前瞻性收集的aSAH患者系列中,我们纳入了在SAH后21天内除再出血外出现任何临床恶化且接受了NCCT/CTP/CTA成像的患者。临床恶化的原因分为DCI和非DCI。使用示踪剂延迟敏感和示踪剂延迟不敏感算法计算CTP图,并由两名经验水平不同的独立观察者对灌注缺损的存在进行视觉评估。计算两名观察者两种算法的诊断价值。
纳入71例患者。对于经验丰富的观察者,延迟敏感算法的阳性预测值(PPV)为0.67,延迟不敏感算法的PPV为0.66,阴性预测值(NPV)分别为0.73和0.74。对于经验较少的观察者,两种算法的PPV均为0.60,延迟敏感算法的NPV为0.66,延迟不敏感算法的NPV为0.63。
在视觉评估CTP诊断DCI时,示踪剂延迟敏感和示踪剂延迟不敏感算法的检测特征具有可比性。这表明两种算法均可用于此目的。