» Articles » PMID: 39052054

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)

Abstract

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 < 0.001). Sensitivity was 66% (individual readers 67%, 69%, and 76%), specificity was 97% (97%, 96%, 89%). Subjective and objective image quality were inferior to CT.

Conclusion: In a small single-center cohort, dual-layer cone-beam CT showed non-inferior hemorrhage detection and ASPECTS accuracy to CT. Despite inferior image quality, the technique may be useful for stroke evaluation in the interventional suite.

Trial Registration Number: NCT04571099 (clinicaltrials.gov). Prospectively registered 2020-09-04.

References
1.
Psychogios M, Maier I, Tsogkas I, Hesse A, Brehm A, Behme D . One-Stop Management of 230 Consecutive Acute Stroke Patients: Report of Procedural Times and Clinical Outcome. J Clin Med. 2019; 8(12). PMC: 6947228. DOI: 10.3390/jcm8122185. View

2.
Doerfler A, Golitz P, Engelhorn T, Kloska S, Struffert T . Flat-Panel Computed Tomography (DYNA-CT) in Neuroradiology. From High-Resolution Imaging of Implants to One-Stop-Shopping for Acute Stroke. Clin Neuroradiol. 2015; 25 Suppl 2:291-7. DOI: 10.1007/s00062-015-0423-x. View

3.
Petroulia V, Kaesmacher J, Piechowiak E, Dobrocky T, Pilgram-Pastor S, Gralla J . Evaluation of Sine Spin flat detector CT imaging compared with multidetector CT. J Neurointerv Surg. 2022; 15(3):292-297. PMC: 9985741. DOI: 10.1136/neurintsurg-2021-018312. View

4.
Soderman M, Babic D, Holmin S, Andersson T . Brain imaging with a flat detector C-arm : Technique and clinical interest of XperCT. Neuroradiology. 2008; 50(10):863-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00234-008-0419-1. View

5.
Pexman J, Barber P, Hill M, Sevick R, Demchuk A, Hudon M . Use of the Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) for assessing CT scans in patients with acute stroke. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001; 22(8):1534-42. PMC: 7974585. View