IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0105413.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Penumbra Pattern Assessment in Acute Stroke Patients: Comparison of Quantitative and Non-Quantitative Methods in Whole Brain CT Perfusion

Author

Listed:
  • Kolja M Thierfelder
  • Louisa von Baumgarten
  • Alena B Baumann
  • Felix G Meinel
  • Andreas D Helck
  • Christian Opherk
  • Andreas Straube
  • Maximilian F Reiser
  • Wieland H Sommer

Abstract

Background And Purpose: While penumbra assessment has become an important part of the clinical decision making for acute stroke patients, there is a lack of studies measuring the reliability and reproducibility of defined assessment techniques in the clinical setting. Our aim was to determine reliability and reproducibility of different types of three-dimensional penumbra assessment methods in stroke patients who underwent whole brain CT perfusion imaging (WB-CTP). Materials And Methods: We included 29 patients with a confirmed MCA infarction who underwent initial WB-CTP with a scan coverage of 100 mm in the z-axis. Two blinded and experienced readers assessed the flow-volume-mismatch twice and in two quantitative ways: Performing a volumetric mismatch analysis using OsiriX imaging software (MMVOL) and visual estimation of mismatch (MMEST). Complementarily, the semiquantitative Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score for CT perfusion was used to define mismatch (MMASPECTS). A favorable penumbral pattern was defined by a mismatch of ≥30% in combination with a cerebral blood flow deficit of ≤90 ml and an MMASPECTS score of ≥1, respectively. Inter- and intrareader agreement was determined by Kappa-values and ICCs. Results: Overall, MMVOL showed considerably higher inter-/intrareader agreement (ICCs: 0.751/0.843) compared to MMEST (0.292/0.749). In the subgroup of large (≥50 mL) perfusion deficits, inter- and intrareader agreement of MMVOL was excellent (ICCs: 0.961/0.942), while MMEST interreader agreement was poor (0.415) and intrareader agreement was good (0.919). With respect to penumbra classification, MMVOL showed the highest agreement (interreader agreement: 25 agreements/4 non-agreements/κ: 0.595; intrareader agreement 27/2/0.833), followed by MMEST (22/7/0.471; 23/6/0.577), and MMASPECTS (18/11/0.133; 21/8/0.340). Conclusion: The evaluated approach of volumetric mismatch assessment is superior to pure visual and ASPECTS penumbra pattern assessment in WB-CTP and helps to precisely judge the extent of 3-dimensional mismatch in acute stroke patients.

Suggested Citation

  • Kolja M Thierfelder & Louisa von Baumgarten & Alena B Baumann & Felix G Meinel & Andreas D Helck & Christian Opherk & Andreas Straube & Maximilian F Reiser & Wieland H Sommer, 2014. "Penumbra Pattern Assessment in Acute Stroke Patients: Comparison of Quantitative and Non-Quantitative Methods in Whole Brain CT Perfusion," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-7, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105413
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105413
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105413
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105413&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0105413?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0105413. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.