Clinical Uncertainty in Large Vessel Occlusion ischemic stroke (CULVO): Does automated perfusion scanning make a difference? Protocol of an intrarater and interrater agreement study

by Jose Danilo Bengzon Diestro, Robert Fahed, Anass Benomar, Abdelsimar T. Omar II, Vitor Mendes Pereira, Julian Spears, Thomas R. Marotta, Pascal Djiadeu, Sunjay Sharma, Forough Farrokhyar

Guidelines recommend the use of perfusion computed tomography (CT) to identify emergent large vessel ischemic stroke (ELVIS) patients who are likely to benefit from endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) if they present within 6–24 hour (late window) of stroke onset. We aim to determine if the interrater and intrarater reliability among physicians when recommending EVT is significantly different when perfusion CT or non-perfusion CT is reviewed.

A total of 30 non-consecutive patients will be selected from our institutional database comprising 3144 cranial CT scans performed for acute stroke symptoms January 2018 to August 2022. The clinical and radiologic data of the 30 patients will be presented in random order to a group of 29 physicians in two separate sessions at least three weeks apart. In each session, the physicians will evaluate each patient once with automated perfusion images and once without. We will use non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals and difference in agreement classification as criteria to suggest a difference between the Gwet AC1 statistics (κ_G).

The results obtained from this study, combined with the clinical outcomes data of patients categorized through the two imaging techniques and a cost-effectiveness analysis, will offer a comprehensive evaluation of the clinical utility of perfusion CT neuroimaging. Should there be no significant disparity in the reliability of decisions made by clinicians using the two neuroimaging protocols, it may be necessary to revise existing recommendations regarding neuroimaging in the later time window to align with these findings.