Assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CT perfusion: a systematic review

Résumé fourni par la source

Background and purpose: Computed tomography perfusion (CTP) has successfully extended the time window for reperfusion therapies in ischemic stroke. However, the published perfusion parameters and thresholds vary between studies. Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines, we conducted a systematic review to investigate the accuracy of parameters and thresholds for identifying core and penumbra in adult stroke patients. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and reference lists of manuscripts up to April 2022 using the following terms "computed tomography perfusion," "stroke," "infarct," and "penumbra." Studies were included if they reported perfusion thresholds and undertook co-registration of CTP to reference standards. The quality of studies was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) guidelines. Results: A total of 24 studies were included. A meta-analysis could not be performed due to insufficient data and significant heterogeneity in the study design. When reported, the mean age was 70.2 years (SD+/-3.69), and the median NIHSS on admission was 15 (IQR 13-17). The perfusion parameter identified for the core was relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF), with a median threshold of <30% (IQR 30, 40%). However, later studies reported lower thresholds in the early time window with rapid reperfusion (median 25%, IQR 20, 30%). A total of 15 studies defined a single threshold for all brain regions irrespective of collaterals and the gray and white matter. Conclusion: A single threshold and parameter may not always accurately differentiate penumbra from core and oligemia. Further refinement of parameters is needed in the current era of reperfusion therapy.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.