INTRODUCTION: Perfusion-CT (PCT) processing involves deconvolution, a mathematical operation that computes the perfusion parameters from the PCT time density curves and an arterial curve. Delay-sensitive deconvolution does not correct for arrival delay of contrast, whereas delay-insensitive deconvolution does. The goal of this study was to compare delay-sensitive and delay-insensitive deconvolution PCT in terms of delineation of the ischemic core and penumbra.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 100 patients with acute ischemic stroke who underwent admission PCT and CT angiography (CTA), a follow-up vascular study to determine recanalization status, and a follow-up noncontrast head CT (NCT) or MRI to calculate final infarct volume. PCT datasets were processed twice, once using delay-sensitive deconvolution and once using delay-insensitive deconvolution. Regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn, and cerebral blood flow (CBF), cerebral blood volume (CBV), and mean transit time (MTT) in these ROIs were recorded and compared. Volume and geographic distribution of ischemic core and penumbra using both deconvolution methods were also recorded and compared.
RESULTS: MTT and CBF values are affected by the deconvolution method used (p < 0.05), while CBV values remain unchanged. Optimal thresholds to delineate ischemic core and penumbra are different for delay-sensitive (145 % MTT, CBV 2 ml × 100 g(-1) × min(-1)) and delay-insensitive deconvolution (135 % MTT, CBV 2 ml × 100 g(-1) × min(-1) for delay-insensitive deconvolution). When applying these different thresholds, however, the predicted ischemic core (p = 0.366) and penumbra (p = 0.405) were similar with both methods.
CONCLUSION: Both delay-sensitive and delay-insensitive deconvolution methods are appropriate for PCT processing in acute ischemic stroke patients. The predicted ischemic core and penumbra are similar with both methods when using different sets of thresholds, specific for each deconvolution method.