Visual Perfusion–Diffusion Mismatch Is Equivalent to Quantitative Mismatch
Background and Purpose—The concept of stroke MRI mismatch based on qualitative evaluation of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI) has been applied in clinical practice for several years. The benefit of MRI in providing pathological evidence of ischemia before thrombolytic treatment has been demonstrated. The purpose of this study is to determine the reliability of the qualitative method and compare it with quantitative mismatch measurement in thrombolytic-treated patients.
Methods—Patients (n=70) were selected from the Lesion Evolution of Stroke and Ischemic On Neuroimaging (LESION) database if they: (1) were treated with intravenous recombinant tissue plasminogen activator; (2) had a pretreatment MRI with evaluable DWI and PWI; and (3) had acute ischemic lesion volume >10 mL on DWI as determined by core imaging laboratory measurements. Quantitative mismatch was defined as a difference of >50 mL between abnormal mean transit time and DWI volumes. Sample characteristics and postdischarge modified Rankin Scale for the positive mismatch patients were compared between the subgroups identified by qualitative versus quantitative methods.
Results—Patient characteristics and thrombolytic outcomes (sex, age, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, mismatch volume, and modified Rankin Scale) did not differ for mismatch patients identified by qualitative versus quantitative methods. Qualitative mismatch selection among neurologists had a high sensitivity (0.82), specificity (0.80), accuracy (0.81), and positive predictive value (0.88) compared with quantitative measurements.
Conclusions—We observed that qualitative evaluation of mismatch identified the same thrombolytic-treated patients compared with retrospective quantitative mismatch measurements.
- acute ischemic stroke
- diffusion-weighted imaging
- magnetic resonance imaging
- perfusion-weighted imaging
- Received September 24, 2010.
- Revision received October 14, 2010.
- Accepted October 28, 2010.
- © 2011 American Heart Association, Inc.