目的:平板探测器计算机断层扫描(FDCT)越来越多地用于(神经)介入血管造影套件。这项研究旨在比较急性缺血性卒中患者的FDCT灌注(FDCTP)与传统的多探测器计算机断层扫描灌注(MDCTP)。
方法:在本研究中,19例前循环大血管闭塞患者接受了机械血栓切除术,纳入基线MDCTP和介入前FDCTP。基于最大可见范围,在达到最大值的时间(Tmax)和达到峰值的时间(TTP)图上手动分割低灌注的组织体积。在Tmax和相对脑血流量(rCBF)图上,将绝对和相对阈值应用于最大可见范围,以描绘半暗带体积和高度不可逆梗死组织的体积(“核心”)。使用标准比较指标来评估FDCTP的性能。
结果:在MDCTP和FDCTPTmax图(r=0.85,95%CI0.65-0.94,p<0.001;ICC=0.85,95%CI0.69-0.94)和TTP图(r=0.91,95%CI0.78-0.97,p<0.001;ICC=0.90,95%CI0.78,但是,使用阈值的直接定量比较显示,相关性较低,一致性较弱(MDCTP与FDCTPTmax6s:r=0.35,95%CI-0.13-0.69,p=0.15;ICC=0.32,95%CI0.07-0.75).标准化技术改善了Tmax图的结果(r=0.78,95%CI0.50-0.91,p<0.001;ICC=0.77,95%CI0.55-0.91)。Bland-Altman分析表明,与MDCTP相比,FDCTPTmax最大可见范围体积略有系统性低估,而FDCTPTTP最大可见范围体积略有高估。
结论:FDCTP和MDCTP在Tmax和TTP图上提供了定性可比的体积结果;然而,对梗死核心和灌注不足的组织体积的直接定量测量显示较低的相关性和一致性。
OBJECTIVE: Flat-panel detector computed tomography (FDCT) is increasingly used in (neuro)interventional angiography suites. This study aimed to compare FDCT perfusion (FDCTP) with conventional multidetector computed tomography perfusion (MDCTP) in patients with acute ischemic stroke.
METHODS: In this study, 19 patients with large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation who had undergone mechanical thrombectomy, baseline MDCTP and pre-interventional FDCTP were included. Hypoperfused tissue volumes were manually segmented on time to maximum (Tmax) and time to peak (TTP) maps based on the maximum visible extent. Absolute and relative thresholds were applied to the maximum visible extent on Tmax and relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) maps to delineate
penumbra volumes and volumes with a high likelihood of irreversible infarcted tissue (\"core\"). Standard comparative metrics were used to evaluate the performance of FDCTP.
RESULTS: Strong correlations and robust agreement were found between manually segmented volumes on MDCTP and FDCTP Tmax maps (r = 0.85, 95% CI 0.65-0.94, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.85, 95% CI 0.69-0.94) and TTP maps (r = 0.91, 95% CI 0.78-0.97, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.90, 95% CI 0.78-0.96); however, direct quantitative comparisons using thresholding showed lower correlations and weaker agreement (MDCTP versus FDCTP Tmax 6 s: r = 0.35, 95% CI -0.13-0.69, p = 0.15; ICC = 0.32, 95% CI 0.07-0.75). Normalization techniques improved results for Tmax maps (r = 0.78, 95% CI 0.50-0.91, p < 0.001; ICC = 0.77, 95% CI 0.55-0.91). Bland-Altman analyses indicated a slight systematic underestimation of FDCTP Tmax maximum visible extent volumes and slight overestimation of FDCTP TTP maximum visible extent volumes compared to MDCTP.
CONCLUSIONS: FDCTP and MDCTP provide qualitatively comparable volumetric results on Tmax and TTP maps; however, direct quantitative measurements of infarct core and hypoperfused tissue volumes showed lower correlations and agreement.