Stroke Evaluation in the Interventional Suite Using Dual-Layer Detector Cone-Beam CT: a First-in-human Prospective Cohort Study (the Next Generation X-ray Imaging System Trial)
Purpose Cone-beam CT in the interventional suite could be an alternative to CT to shorten door-to-thrombectomy time. However, image quality in cone-beam CT is limited by artifacts and poor differentiation between gray and white matter. This study compared non-contrast brain dual-layer cone-beam CT i...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical neuroradiology (Munich) 2024-12, Vol.34 (4), p.929-937 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Purpose
Cone-beam CT in the interventional suite could be an alternative to CT to shorten door-to-thrombectomy time. However, image quality in cone-beam CT is limited by artifacts and poor differentiation between gray and white matter. This study compared non-contrast brain dual-layer cone-beam CT in the interventional suite to reference standard CT in stroke patients.
Methods
A prospective single-center study enrolled consecutive participants with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. The hemorrhage detection accuracy, per-region ASPECTS accuracy and subjective image quality (Likert scales for gray-white matter differentiation, structure perception and artifacts) were assessed by three neuroradiologists blinded to clinical data on dual-layer cone-beam CT 75 keV monoenergetic images compared to CT. Objective image quality was assessed by region-of-interest metrics. Non-inferiority for hemorrhage detection and ASPECTS accuracy was determined by the exact binomial test with a one-sided lower performance boundary prospectively set to 80% (98.75% CI).
Results
27 participants were included (74 years ± 9; 19 female) in the hyperacute or acute stroke phase. One reader missed a small bleeding, but all hemorrhages were detected in the majority analysis (100% accuracy, CI lower boundary 86%,
p
= 0.002). ASPECTS majority analysis showed 90% accuracy (CI lower boundary 85%,
p
|
---|---|
ISSN: | 1869-1439 1869-1447 1869-1447 |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00062-024-01439-7 |