English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

49 Background: CT is considered less sensitive and  reliable than MRI for the detection of ischemia in hyperacute stroke.  This study compares these two modalities.Methods: We  included all ischemic stroke patients who had both CT &lt; 6 hours  and MRI &lt; 7 hours from onset. A quantitative scoring system  (ASPECTS) was applied to CT, MR FLAIR and DWI at baseline and at  follow-up (&lt;36h) by five independent observers (2 neuroradiologists  and 3 stroke neurologists) with only knowledge of stroke symptom side.  CT was also assessed for hyperdense MCA and sylvian fissure MCA  “dot” signs. The analysis was derived from consensus agreement  among individual observers. MRA was the “gold standard” for  vascular occlusion.Results: 52 patients had CT and MRI  acutely. The median NIHSS was 9. The mean onset to CT was 125 minutes  and to MRI 241 minutes (P&lt; 0.001). Baseline CT and DWI ASPECTS were  highly correlated (r 0.75 P&lt;0.001). Median baseline CT, FLAIR and DWI  scores using ASPECTS were 9, 10, and 8.5 respectively. At baseline DWI  ASPECTS was 0.5 points lower than CT, but CT ASPECTS was a significant  1 point lower than FLAIR (P&lt;0.03 and &lt;0.001 respectively, Wilcoxon  signed rank). However there was no difference between baseline CT and  DWI at predicting follow-up DWI ASPECTS (P=0.12 Wilcoxon signed rank).  Intraclass correlation coefficients to assess agreement among observer  scores at baseline were moderate to excellent for CT and DWI (0.72 95%  CI 0.62–0.81 and 0.71 95% CI 0.62–0.81 respectively) but was poor  for FLAIR (0.43 95% CI 0.29–0.57). Hyperdense MCA and MCA “dot”  signs had sensitivity 0.57 and specificity 0.96, using MRA as the  “gold standard” for MCA occlusion (χ2 P&lt;0.001).  Interobserver agreement for hyperdense signs was in the moderate to  good range (kappa 0.50–0.67).Conclusion: CT appears as  good as DWI for assessing ischemic tissue in hyperacute stroke when  evaluated by experienced CT readers using ASPECTS. We speculate this  surprising finding could be explained by excessive DWI basal ganglia  hypointensity, MR susceptibility artifact at skull base, and less  conspicuous DWI abnormality than previously recognised in the first  hours of ischemia.

A comparison of CT versus MR imaging in acute stroke using ASPECTS: Will the “new” replace the “old” as the preferred imaging modality?