Multimodal imaging in acute ischemic stroke

Ghost Infarct Core and Admission Computed Tomography Perfusion: Redefining the Role of Neuroimaging in Acute Ischemic Stroke

Background

Determining the size of infarct extent is crucial to elect patients for reperfusion therapies. Computed tomography perfusion (CTP) based on cerebral blood volume may overestimate infarct core on admission and consequently include ghost infarct core (GIC) in a definitive lesional area.

Purpose

Our goal was to confirm and better characterize the GIC phenomenon using CTP cerebral blood flow (CBF) as the reference parameter to determine infarct core.

Methods

We performed a retrospective, single-center analysis of consecutive thrombectomies of middle cerebral or intracranial internal carotid artery occlusions considering noncontrast CT Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score ≥6 in patients with pretreatment CTP. We used the RAPID® software to measure admission infarct core based on initial CBF. The final infarct was extracted from follow-up CT. GIC was defined as initial core minus final infarct > 10 mL.

Results

A total of 123 patients were included. The median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score was 18 (13-20), the median time from symptoms to CTP was 188 (67-288) min, and the recanalization rate (Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score 2b, 2c, or 3) was 83%. Twenty patients (16%) presented with GIC. GIC was associated with shorter time to recanalization (150 [105-291] vs. 255 [163-367] min, p = 0.05) and larger initial CBF core volume (38 [26-59] vs. 6 [0-27] mL, p < 0.001). An adjusted logistic regression model identified time to recanalization < 302 min (OR 4.598, 95% CI 1.143-18.495, p = 0.032) and initial infarct volume (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.001-1.019, p = 0.032) as independent predictors of GIC. At 24 h, clinical improvement was more frequent in patients with GIC (80 vs. 49%, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

CTP CBF < 30% may overestimate infarct core volume, especially in patients imaged in the very early time window and with fast complete reperfusion. Therefore, the CTP CBF technique may exclude patients who would benefit from endovascular treatment.

Admission CT perfusion may overestimate initial infarct core: the ghost infarct core concept

Background

Identifying infarct core on admission is essential to establish the amount of salvageable tissue and indicate reperfusion therapies. Infarct core is established on CT perfusion (CTP) as the severely hypoperfused area, however the correlation between hypoperfusion and infarct core may be time-dependent as it is not a direct indicator of tissue damage. This study aims to characterize those cases in which the admission core lesion on CTP does not reflect an infarct on follow-up imaging.

Methods

We studied patients with cerebral large vessel occlusion who underwent CTP on admission but received endovascular thrombectomy based on a non-contrast CT Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) >6. Admission infarct core was measured on initial cerebral blood volume (CBV) CTP and final infarct on follow-up CT. We defined ghost infarct core (GIC) as initial core minus final infarct >10 mL.

Results

79 patients were studied. Median National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score was 17 (11–20), median time from symptoms to CTP was 215 (87–327) min, and recanalization rate (TICI 2b–3) was 77%. Thirty patients (38%) presented with a GIC >10 mL. GIC >10 mL was associated with recanalization (TICI 2b–3: 90% vs 68%; p=0.026), admission glycemia (<185 mg/dL: 42% vs 0%; p=0.028), and time to CTP (<185 min: 51% vs >185 min: 26%; p=0.033). An adjusted logistic regression model identified time from symptom to CTP imaging <185 min as the only predictor of GIC >10 mL (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.04 to 8.09). At 24 hours, clinical improvement was more frequent in patients with GIC >10 mL (66.6% vs 39%; p=0.017).

Conclusions

CT perfusion may overestimate final infarct core, especially in the early time window. Selecting patients for reperfusion therapies based on the CTP mismatch concept may deny treatment to patients who might still benefit from reperfusion.

Multimodal neuroimaging computing: the workflows, methods, and platforms

The last two decades have witnessed the explosive growth in the development and use of noninvasive neuroimaging technologies that advance the research on human brain under normal and pathological conditions. Multimodal neuroimaging has become a major driver of current neuroimaging research due to the recognition of the clinical benefits of multimodal data, and the better access to hybrid devices. Multimodal neuroimaging computing is very challenging, and requires sophisticated computing to address the variations in spatiotemporal resolution and merge the biophysical/biochemical information. We review the current workflows and methods for multimodal neuroimaging computing, and also demonstrate how to conduct research using the established neuroimaging computing packages and platforms.

Multimodal neuroimaging computing: a review of the applications in neuropsychiatric disorders

Multimodal neuroimaging is increasingly used in neuroscience research, as it overcomes the limitations of individual modalities. One of the most important applications of multimodal neuroimaging is the provision of vital diagnostic data for neuropsychiatric disorders. Multimodal neuroimaging computing enables the visualization and quantitative analysis of the alterations in brain structure and function, and has reshaped how neuroscience research is carried out. Research in this area is growing exponentially, and so it is an appropriate time to review the current and future development of this emerging area. Hence, in this paper, we review the recent advances in multimodal neuroimaging (MRI, PET) and electrophysiological (EEG, MEG) technologies, and their applications to the neuropsychiatric disorders. We also outline some future directions for multimodal neuroimaging where researchers will design more advanced methods and models for neuropsychiatric research.