Association of admission plasma glucose level and cerebral computed tomographic perfusion deficit volumes.

INTRODUCTION: Hyperglycemia in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is frequent and associated with worse outcome. Yet, strict glycemic control in AIS patients has failed to yield beneficial outcome. So far, the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms of admission hyperglycemia in AIS have remained not fully understood. We aimed to evaluate the yet equivocal association of hyperglycemia with computed tomographic perfusion (CTP) deficit volumes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included 832 consecutive AIS and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients who underwent CTP as a part of screening for recanalization treatment (stroke code) between 3/2018 and 10/2020, from the prospective cohort of Helsinki Stroke Quality Registry. Associations of admission glucose level (AGL) and CTP deficit volumes, namely ischemic core, defined as relative cerebral blood flow <30%, and hypoperfusion lesions Time-to-maximum (Tmax) >6 s and Tmax >10s, as determined with RAPID® software, were analyzed with a linear regression model adjusted for age, sex, C-reactive protein, and time from symptom onset to imaging. RESULTS: AGL median was 6.8 mmol/L (interquartile range 5.9-8.0 mmol/L), and 222 (27%) patients were hyperglycemic (glucose >7.8 mmol/L) on admission. In non-diabetic patients (643 [77%]), AGL was significantly associated with volume of Tmax. >6 s (regression coefficient [RC] 4.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-9.1), of Tmax >10s (RC 4.6, 95% CI 1.2-8.1), and of ischemic core (RC 2.6, 95% CI 0.64-4.6). No significant associations were shown in diabetic patients. CONCLUSION: Admission hyperglycemia appears to be associated with both larger volume of hypoperfusion lesions and of ischemic core in non-diabetic stroke code patients with AIS and TIA.

Comparative analysis of core and perfusion lesion volumes between commercially available computed tomography perfusion software.

Introduction: Computed tomography perfusion (CTP) imaging has become an important tool in evaluating acute recanalization treatment candidates. Large clinical trials have successfully used RAPID automated imaging analysis software for quantifying ischemic core and penumbra, yet other commercially available software vendors are also on the market. We evaluated the possible difference in ischemic core and perfusion lesion volumes and the agreement rate of target mismatch between OLEA, MIStar, and Syngo.Via versus RAPID software in acute recanalization treatment candidates. Patients and methods: All consecutive stroke-code patients with baseline CTP RAPID imaging at Helsinki University Hospital during 8/2018-9/2021 were included. Ischemic core was defined as cerebral blood flow <30% than the contralateral hemisphere and within the area of delay time (DT) >3s with MIStar. Perfusion lesion volume was defined as DT > 3 s (MIStar) and Tmax > 6 s with all other software. A perfusion mismatch ratio of ⩾1.8, a perfusion lesion volume of ⩾15 mL, and ischemic core <70 mL was defined as target mismatch. The mean pairwise differences of the core and perfusion lesion volumes between software were calculated using the Bland-Altman method and the agreement of target mismatch between software using the Pearson correlation. Results: A total of 1606 patients had RAPID perfusion maps, 1222 of which had MIStar, 596 patients had OLEA, and 349 patients had Syngo.Via perfusion maps available. Each software was compared with simultaneously analyzed RAPID software. MIStar showed the smallest core difference compared with RAPID (-2 mL, confidence interval (CI) from -26 to 22), followed by OLEA (2 mL, CI from -33 to 38). Perfusion lesion volume differed least with MIStar (4 mL, CI from -62 to 71) in comparison with RAPID, followed by Syngo.Via (6 mL, CI from -94 to 106). MIStar had the best agreement rate with target mismatch of RAPID followed by OLEA and Syngo.Via. Discussion and conclusion: Comparison of RAPID with three other automated imaging analysis software showed variance in ischemic core and perfusion lesion volumes and in target mismatch.