Corbaz Helene, Ntoulias Nikolaos, Brehm Alex, Wolleb Julia, Cattin Philippe Claude, Bieder Florentin, Schulze-Zachau Victor, Psychogios Marios-Nikos
From the Department of Biomedical Engineering (H.C., J.W., P.C.C., F.B.), University Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Department of Diagnostic & Interventional Neuroradiology (N.N., A.B., V.S.-Z., M.-N.P.), Radiology & Nuclear Medicine Clinic, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2025 May 2;46(5):900-907. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A8616.
CTP has been validated for stroke due to large vessel occlusion, but not for medium or distal vessel occlusions (MDVO). The aim of this study was to evaluate discrepancy of 2 widely used postprocessing tools for CTP in patients with medium/distal vessel occlusion (MDVO) stroke.
This retrospective single-center cohort study comprised CTP data sets of patients with acute isolated MDVO and disabling stroke. CTP postprocessing included Syngo.via and RapidAI. Perfusion lesions were segmented and compared with regard to volume and spatial distribution of the perfusion abnormalities. For each patient, the results of the 2 postprocessing tools were deemed to represent agreement regarding volume and/or distribution according to a predefined classification scheme. Penumbra volumes were compared between postprocessing tools by using the test for paired samples.
Fifty CTP data sets from 49 patients (mean age 75.3 ± 10.7 years, 33 male patients) were included. In <30% of patients, the predefined criteria for agreement were met which indicate at least 50% congruence regarding lesion size and lesion location as well as a maximum distance between lesion margins <50 mm. Comparison of tissue at risk volumes revealed outliers, volume disagreement, and distribution disagreement in up to 79.6%. The 2 postprocessing tools disagreed on presence and volume of an infarct core in up to 86% of patients. Penumbra volumes differed significantly between postprocessing tools ( < .001; mean difference 50.5 mL/16.9 mL).
Despite being in daily use, commercially available postprocessing tools for CTP provide discrepant results in patients with MDVO.
CTP已被证实可用于评估大血管闭塞性卒中,但尚未用于评估中、远端血管闭塞(MDVO)性卒中。本研究旨在评估两种广泛使用的CTP后处理工具在中/远端血管闭塞(MDVO)性卒中患者中的差异。
本回顾性单中心队列研究纳入了急性孤立性MDVO和致残性卒中患者的CTP数据集。CTP后处理包括Syngo.via和RapidAI。对灌注病变进行分割,并比较灌注异常的体积和空间分布。根据预定义的分类方案,对于每位患者,将两种后处理工具的结果视为在体积和/或分布方面达成一致。使用配对样本检验比较后处理工具之间的半暗带体积。
纳入了49例患者(平均年龄75.3±10.7岁,33例男性患者)的50个CTP数据集。在不到30%的患者中,达到了一致性的预定义标准,即病变大小和病变位置至少50%一致,且病变边缘之间的最大距离<50 mm。对有风险组织体积的比较显示,高达79.6%的患者存在异常值、体积不一致和分布不一致。在高达86%的患者中,两种后处理工具在梗死核心的存在和体积方面存在分歧。后处理工具之间的半暗带体积差异显著(P<.001;平均差异50.5 mL/16.9 mL)。
尽管CTP的商用后处理工具在日常使用中,但在MDVO患者中提供的结果存在差异。