LAUSR

Objective The aim of this study was to compare 3 computed tomography perfusion (CTP) software packages in the estimation of infarct core volumes, hypoperfusion volumes, and mismatch volumes. Methods Forty-three patients with large vessel occlusion in the anterior circulation who underwent CTP imaging were postprocessed by 3 software packages: RAPID, advantage workstation (AW), and NovoStroke Kit (NSK). Infarct core volumes and hypoperfusion volumes were generated by RAPID with default settings. The AW and NSK threshold settings were the following: infarct core (cerebral blood flow [CBF] <8 mL/min/100 g, CBF <10 mL/min/100 g, CBF <12 mL/min/100 g, and cerebral blood volume [CBV] <1 mL/100 g) and hypoperfusion (Tmax >6 seconds). Mismatch volumes were then obtained for all the combinations of the settings. Bland-Altman, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and Spearman ρ or Pearson correlation coefficient were applied for statistical analysis. Results In the estimation of infarct core volumes, good agreement was observed between AW and RAPID when CBV <1 mL/100 g (ICC, 0.767; P < 0.001). For hypoperfusion volumes, good agreement (ICC, 0.811; P < 0.001) and strong correlation (r = 0.856; P < 0.001) were observed between NSK and RAPID. For mismatch volumes, the setting of CBF <10 mL/min/100 g combined with hypoperfusion with NSK resulted in moderate agreement (ICC, 0.699; P < 0.001) with RAPID, which was the best among all other settings. Conclusions The estimation results varied among different software packages. Advantage workstation had the best agreement with RAPID in the estimation of infarct core volumes when CBV <1 mL/100 g. NovoStroke Kit had better agreement and correlation with RAPID in the estimation of hypoperfusion volumes. NovoStroke Kit also had moderate agreement with RAPID in estimating mismatch volumes.