Suppr超能文献

两种灌注成像软件包的比较:急性缺血性脑卒中的缺血核心和半影估计及患者分诊。

Comparison of Two Software Packages for Perfusion Imaging: Ischemic Core and Penumbra Estimation and Patient Triage in Acute Ischemic Stroke.

机构信息

Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, 389 Xincun Rd., Shanghai 200065, China.

YIWEI Medical Technology Co., Ltd., Room 1001, MAI KE LONG Building, Shenzhen 518000, China.

出版信息

Cells. 2022 Aug 16;11(16):2547. doi: 10.3390/cells11162547.

Abstract

Automated postprocessing packages have been developed for managing acute ischemic stroke (AIS). These packages identify ischemic core and penumbra using either computed tomographic perfusion imaging (CTP) data or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data. Measurements of abnormal tissues and treatment decisions derived from different vendors can vary. The purpose of this study is to investigate the agreement of volumetric and decision-making outcomes derived from two software packages. A total of 594 AIS patients (174 underwent CTP and 420 underwent MRI) were included. Imaging data were accordingly postprocessed by two software packages: RAPID and RealNow. Volumetric outputs were compared between packages by performing intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Wilcoxon paired test and Bland-Altman analysis. Concordance of selecting patients eligible for mechanical thrombectomy (MT) was assessed based on neuroimaging criteria proposed in DEFUSE3. In the group with CTP data, mean ischemic core volume (ICV)/penumbral volume (PV) was 14.9/81.1 mL via RAPID and 12.6/83.2 mL via RealNow. Meanwhile, in the MRI group, mean ICV/PV were 52.4/68.4 mL and 48.9/61.6 mL via RAPID and RealNow, respectively. Reliability, which was measured by ICC of ICV and PV in CTP and MRI groups, ranged from 0.87 to 0.99. The bias remained small between measurements (CTP ICV: 0.89 mL, CTP PV: -2 mL, MRI ICV: 3.5 mL and MRI PV: 6.8 mL). In comparison with CTP ICV with follow-up DWI, the ICC was 0.92 and 0.94 for RAPID and Realnow, respectively. The bias remained small between CTP ICV and follow-up DWI measurements (Rapid: -4.65 mL, RealNow: -3.65 mL). Wilcoxon paired test showed no significant difference between measurements. The results of patient triage were concordant in 159/174 cases (91%, ICC: 0.90) for CTP and 400/420 cases (95%, ICC: 0.93) for MRI. The CTP ICV derived from RealNow was more accurate than RAPID. The similarity in volumetric measurement between packages did not necessarily relate to equivalent patient triage. In this study, RealNow showed excellent agreement with RAPID in measuring ICV and PV as well as patient triage.

摘要

自动化后处理包已被开发用于管理急性缺血性脑卒中(AIS)。这些包通过使用 CT 灌注成像(CTP)数据或磁共振成像(MRI)数据来识别缺血核心和半暗带。不同供应商的异常组织测量和治疗决策结果可能存在差异。本研究的目的是研究两种软件包衍生的容积和决策结果的一致性。共纳入 594 例 AIS 患者(174 例行 CTP,420 例行 MRI)。影像数据通过两种软件包(RAPID 和 RealNow)进行后处理。通过计算组内相关系数(ICC)、Wilcoxon 配对检验和 Bland-Altman 分析比较两种软件包的容积输出。根据 DEFUSE3 中提出的神经影像学标准评估两种软件包对选择适合机械取栓(MT)的患者的一致性。在 CTP 数据组中,RAPID 测量的缺血核心体积(ICV)/半暗带体积(PV)平均值为 14.9/81.1mL,RealNow 测量的为 12.6/83.2mL。同时,在 MRI 组中,RAPID 和 RealNow 测量的平均 ICV/PV 分别为 52.4/68.4mL 和 48.9/61.6mL。通过 ICC 测量的 CTP 和 MRI 组的 ICV 和 PV 的可靠性范围为 0.87 至 0.99。两种测量之间的偏差仍然很小(CTP ICV:0.89mL,CTP PV:-2mL,MRI ICV:3.5mL,MRI PV:6.8mL)。与 CTP ICV 随访 DWI 相比,RAPID 和 Realnow 的 ICC 分别为 0.92 和 0.94。CTP ICV 与随访 DWI 测量之间的偏差仍然很小(Rapid:-4.65mL,RealNow:-3.65mL)。Wilcoxon 配对检验显示两种测量之间无显著差异。CTP 中,159/174 例(91%,ICC:0.90)和 MRI 中,400/420 例(95%,ICC:0.93)的患者分诊结果具有一致性。RealNow 衍生的 CTP ICV 比 RAPID 更准确。两种软件包在容积测量上的相似性不一定与等效的患者分诊有关。在这项研究中,RealNow 在测量 ICV 和 PV 以及患者分诊方面与 RAPID 具有极好的一致性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/9969/9406974/922fa92fa857/cells-11-02547-g001.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验