Validation of the Charlotte large artery occlusion endovascular therapy outcome score using Viz.ai-derived cerebral blood volume index.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 Medicine
Interventional Neuroradiology Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-09 DOI:10.1177/15910199221149563
Rahul R Karamchandani, Hongmei Yang, Jeremy B Rhoten, Dale Strong, Sagar Satyanarayana, Andrew W Asimos
{"title":"Validation of the Charlotte large artery occlusion endovascular therapy outcome score using Viz.ai-derived cerebral blood volume index.","authors":"Rahul R Karamchandani, Hongmei Yang, Jeremy B Rhoten, Dale Strong, Sagar Satyanarayana, Andrew W Asimos","doi":"10.1177/15910199221149563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Charlotte large artery occlusion endovascular therapy outcome score (CLEOS) predicts poor 90-day outcomes for patients presenting with internal carotid artery (ICA) or middle cerebral artery (MCA) occlusions. It incorporates RAPID-derived cerebral blood volume (CBV) index, a marker of collateral circulation. We validated the predictive ability of CLEOS with Viz.ai-processed computed tomography perfusion (CTP) imaging.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The original CLEOS derivation cohort was compared to a validation cohort consisting of all ICA and MCA thrombectomy patients treated at a large health system with Viz.ai-processed CTP. Rates of poor 90-day outcome (mRS 4-6) were compared in the derivation and validation cohorts, stratified by CLEOS. CLEOS was compared to previously described prediction models using area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Calibration of CLEOS was performed to compare predicted risk of poor outcomes with observed outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One-hundred eighty-one patients (mean age 66.4 years, median NIHSS 16) in the validation cohort were included. The validation cohort had higher median CTP core volumes (24 vs 8 ml) and smaller median mismatch volumes (81 vs 101 ml) than the derivation cohort. CLEOS-predicted poor outcomes strongly correlated with observed outcomes (<i>R</i><sup>2</sup> = 0.82). AUC for CLEOS in the validation cohort (0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.80) was similar to the derivation cohort (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.80) and was comparable or superior to previously described prognostic models.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CLEOS can predict risk of poor 90-day outcomes in ICA and MCA thrombectomy patients evaluated with pre-intervention, Viz.ai-processed CTP.</p>","PeriodicalId":14380,"journal":{"name":"Interventional Neuroradiology","volume":" ","pages":"80-87"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11833827/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Interventional Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15910199221149563","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The Charlotte large artery occlusion endovascular therapy outcome score (CLEOS) predicts poor 90-day outcomes for patients presenting with internal carotid artery (ICA) or middle cerebral artery (MCA) occlusions. It incorporates RAPID-derived cerebral blood volume (CBV) index, a marker of collateral circulation. We validated the predictive ability of CLEOS with Viz.ai-processed computed tomography perfusion (CTP) imaging.

Methods: The original CLEOS derivation cohort was compared to a validation cohort consisting of all ICA and MCA thrombectomy patients treated at a large health system with Viz.ai-processed CTP. Rates of poor 90-day outcome (mRS 4-6) were compared in the derivation and validation cohorts, stratified by CLEOS. CLEOS was compared to previously described prediction models using area under the curve (AUC) analyses. Calibration of CLEOS was performed to compare predicted risk of poor outcomes with observed outcomes.

Results: One-hundred eighty-one patients (mean age 66.4 years, median NIHSS 16) in the validation cohort were included. The validation cohort had higher median CTP core volumes (24 vs 8 ml) and smaller median mismatch volumes (81 vs 101 ml) than the derivation cohort. CLEOS-predicted poor outcomes strongly correlated with observed outcomes (R2 = 0.82). AUC for CLEOS in the validation cohort (0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.80) was similar to the derivation cohort (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.70-0.80) and was comparable or superior to previously described prognostic models.

Conclusions: CLEOS can predict risk of poor 90-day outcomes in ICA and MCA thrombectomy patients evaluated with pre-intervention, Viz.ai-processed CTP.

使用 Viz.ai-derived 大脑血容量指数验证夏洛特大动脉闭塞血管内治疗结果评分。
背景:夏洛特大动脉闭塞血管内治疗结果评分(CLEOS)可预测颈内动脉(ICA)或大脑中动脉(MCA)闭塞患者的 90 天不良预后。它结合了 RAPID 导出的脑血容量(CBV)指数,这是侧支循环的一个标记。我们用 Viz.ai- 处理的计算机断层扫描灌注(CTP)成像验证了 CLEOS 的预测能力:方法:将原始 CLEOS 派生队列与验证队列进行比较,验证队列包括在一家大型医疗系统接受 Viz.ai- 处理 CTP 治疗的所有 ICA 和 MCA 血栓切除术患者。比较了衍生队列和验证队列的 90 天不良预后率(mRS 4-6),并按 CLEOS 进行了分层。使用曲线下面积(AUC)分析将 CLEOS 与之前描述的预测模型进行了比较。对 CLEOS 进行了校准,以比较预测的不良预后风险和观察到的预后:共有 181 名患者(平均年龄 66.4 岁,NIHSS 中位数 16)被纳入验证队列。与推导队列相比,验证队列的 CTP 核心体积中位数更高(24 对 8 毫升),错配体积中位数更小(81 对 101 毫升)。CLEOS 预测的不良预后与观察到的预后密切相关(R2 = 0.82)。验证队列中 CLEOS 的 AUC(0.72,95% CI 0.64-0.80)与推导队列(AUC 0.75,95% CI 0.70-0.80)相似,与之前描述的预后模型相当或更优:结论:CLEOS可以预测经Viz.ai干预前处理的CTP评估的ICA和MCA血栓切除术患者90天不良预后的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
11.80%
发文量
192
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Interventional Neuroradiology (INR) is a peer-reviewed clinical practice journal documenting the current state of interventional neuroradiology worldwide. INR publishes original clinical observations, descriptions of new techniques or procedures, case reports, and articles on the ethical and social aspects of related health care. Original research published in INR is related to the practice of interventional neuroradiology...
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信