Background X-ray angiography perfusion (XAP) is a perfusion imaging technique based on conventional DSA.
Objective In this study, we aimed to validate parameters derived from XAP by comparing them with 15O-gas/water positron emission tomography (PET), using data from patients with chronic ischemic cerebrovascular disease.
Methods 18 consecutive patients were included. XAP was performed with intra-arterial infusion of contrast media, and a time–density curve was constructed for each cerebral hemisphere. From the curves, the relative values of mean transit time (rMTT) and wash-in rate (rWiR) were obtained by dividing the values of the right hemisphere by those of the left hemisphere. These were then compared with the relative values of cerebral blood flow (rCBF) and rMTT calculated from the PET data.
Results XAP rWiR correlated strongly with PET rCBF (r=0.86, P<0.0001). rMTT measurements from the two modalities were also strongly correlated (r=0.85, P<0.0001). Bland–Altman analysis revealed a bias of 0.14±0.18 (95% limits of agreement −0.22 to 0.51) for PET rCBF versus XAP rWiR, and 0.016±0.093 (95% limits of agreement −0.17 to 0.20) for rMTT between the two modalities.
Conclusions The relative values obtained from XAP were validated across a population of patients with chronic ischemic cerebrovascular disease.
- blood flow
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors Concept and study design: KA, HN, JH, HK and TY. Data acquisition and analysis: KA, TW, HN, TN, and MS. Drafting of the manuscript and figures: KA, TW, and HN. Review and editing of the manuscript: all authors.
Funding This work was supported by the Osaka Medical Research Foundation for Intractable Diseases, grant No 23-2-2.
Competing interests None declared.
Ethics approval The study was approved by the ethics committee of the institutional review board.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.