Objective: The aim of this study was to compare 3 computed tomography perfusion (CTP) software packages in the estimation of infarct core volumes, hypoperfusion volumes, and mismatch volumes.
Methods: Forty-three patients with large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation who underwent CTP imaging were postprocessed by 3 software packages: RAPID, advantage workstation (AW), and NovoStroke Kit (NSK). Infarct core volumes and hypoperfusion volumes were generated by RAPID with default settings. The AW and NSK threshold settings were the following: infarct core (cerebral blood flow [CBF] <8 mL/min/100 g, CBF <10 mL/min/100 g, CBF <12 mL/min/100 g, and cerebral blood volume [CBV] <1 mL/100 g) and hypoperfusion (T max >6 seconds). Mismatch volumes were then obtained for all the combinations of the settings. Bland-Altman, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Spearman ρ or Pearson correlation coefficient were applied for statistical analysis.
Results: In the estimation of infarct core volumes, good agreement was observed between AW and RAPID when CBV <1 mL/100 g (ICC, 0.767; P < 0.001). For hypoperfusion volumes, good agreement (ICC, 0.811; P < 0.001) and strong correlation ( r = 0.856; P < 0.001) were observed between NSK and RAPID. For mismatch volumes, the setting of CBF <10 mL/min/100 g combined with hypoperfusion with NSK resulted in moderate agreement (ICC, 0.699; P < 0.001) with RAPID, which was the best among all other settings.
Conclusions: The estimation results varied among different software packages. Advantage workstation had the best agreement with RAPID in the estimation of infarct core volumes when CBV <1 mL/100 g. NovoStroke Kit had better agreement and correlation with RAPID in the estimation of hypoperfusion volumes. NovoStroke Kit also had moderate agreement with RAPID in estimating mismatch volumes.
Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.