4.7 Article

ABC/2 for rapid clinical estimate of infarct, perfusion, and mismatch volumes

期刊

NEUROLOGY
卷 72, 期 24, 页码 2104-2110

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3181aa5329

关键词

-

资金

  1. American Heart Association, Scientist Development [0535138N]
  2. NIH [K08 NS049241]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Rapid and easy clinical assessments for volumes of infarction and perfusion mismatch are needed. We tested whether simple geometric models generated accurate estimates of these volumes. Methods: Acute diffusion-weighted image (DWI) and perfusion (mean transit time [MTT]) in 63 strokes and established infarct volumes in 50 subacute strokes were measured by computerized planimetry. Mismatch was defined as MTT/DWI >= 1.2. Observers, blinded to planimetric values, measured lesions in three perpendicular axes A, B, and C. Geometric estimates of sphere, ellipsoid, bicone, and cylinder were compared to planimetric volume by least-squares linear regression. Results: The ABC/2 formula (ellipsoid) was superior to other geometries for estimating volume of DWI (slope 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94 to 1.38; R-2 = 0.91, p = 0.001) and MTT (slope 1.11, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.23; R-2 = 0.89, p = 0.001). The intrarater and interrater reliability for ABC/2 was high for both DWI (0.992 and 0.965) and MTT (0.881 and 0.712). For subacute infarct, the ABC/2 formula also best estimated planimetric volume (slope 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.19; R-2 = 0.74, p = 0.001). In general, sphere and cylinder geometries overestimated all volumes and bicone underestimated all volumes. The positive predictive value for mismatch was 92% and negative predictive value was 33%. Conclusions: Of the models tested, ABC/2 is reproducible, is accurate, and provides the best simple geometric estimate of infarction and mean transit time volumes. ABC/2 has a high positive predictive value for identifying mismatch greater than 20% and might be a useful tool for rapid determination of acute stroke treatment. Neurology (R) 2009;72:2104-2110

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据