From the Department of Radiology, Zuyderland Medical Center, Heerlen/Sittard/Geleen, the Netherlands.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020 Apr;41(4):607-611. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A6469. Epub 2020 Mar 12.
It is currently not completely clear how well radiologists perform in evaluating large-vessel occlusion on CTA in acute ischemic stroke. The purpose of this study was to investigate potential factors associated with diagnostic error.
Five hundred twenty consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke (49.4% men; mean age, 72 years) who underwent CTA to evaluate large-vessel occlusion of the proximal anterior circulation were included. CTA scans were retrospectively reviewed by a consensus panel of 2 neuroradiologists. Logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the association between several variables and missed large-vessel occlusion at the initial CTA interpretation.
The prevalence of large-vessel occlusion was 16% (84/520 patients); 20% (17/84) of large-vessel occlusions were missed at the initial CTA evaluation. In multivariate analysis, non-neuroradiologists were more likely to miss large-vessel occlusion compared with neuroradiologists (OR = 5.62; 95% CI, 1.06-29.85; = .04), and occlusions of the M2 segment were more likely to be missed compared with occlusions of the distal internal carotid artery and/or M1 segment (OR = 5.69; 95% CI, 1.44-22.57; = .01). There were no calcified emboli in initially correctly identified large-vessel occlusions. However, calcified emboli were present in 4 of 17 (24%) initially missed or misinterpreted large-vessel occlusions.
Several factors may have an association with missing a large-vessel occlusion on CTA, including the CTA interpreter (non-neuroradiologists versus neuroradiologists), large-vessel occlusion location (M2 segment versus the distal internal carotid artery and/or M1 segment), and large-vessel occlusion caused by calcified emboli. Awareness of these factors may improve the accuracy in interpreting CTA and eventually improve stroke outcome.
目前尚不完全清楚放射科医生在评估急性缺血性卒中 CTA 中的大血管闭塞情况方面的表现如何。本研究旨在探讨与诊断错误相关的潜在因素。
本研究纳入了 520 例经 CTA 评估近端前循环大血管闭塞的急性缺血性卒中患者(49.4%为男性;平均年龄为 72 岁)。由 2 名神经放射科医生对 CTA 扫描进行回顾性复查。采用逻辑回归分析探讨了几个变量与初始 CTA 解读时漏诊大血管闭塞之间的相关性。
大血管闭塞的发生率为 16%(520 例患者中有 84 例);20%(17/84)的大血管闭塞在初始 CTA 评估时漏诊。多变量分析显示,与神经放射科医生相比,非神经放射科医生更有可能漏诊大血管闭塞(OR=5.62;95%CI,1.06-29.85;=0.04),M2 段的闭塞更有可能漏诊,而不是远端颈内动脉和/或 M1 段的闭塞(OR=5.69;95%CI,1.44-22.57;=0.01)。在最初正确识别的大血管闭塞中没有钙化栓子。然而,在最初漏诊或误诊的 17 例大血管闭塞中,有 4 例(24%)存在钙化栓子。
几个因素可能与 CTA 漏诊大血管闭塞有关,包括 CTA 解读者(非神经放射科医生与神经放射科医生)、大血管闭塞位置(M2 段与远端颈内动脉和/或 M1 段)以及由钙化栓子引起的大血管闭塞。了解这些因素可能会提高 CTA 解读的准确性,并最终改善卒中预后。