Abstract WP56: The Hypoperfusion Intensity Ratio is a Poor Discriminator of Infarct Growth in Fully Reperfused Patients

Background and Purpose: The hypoperfusion intensity ratio (HIR) is a perfusion-weighted imaging parameter defined as the ratio of Tmax>10 seconds : Tmax>6 seconds volume and is believed to be reflective of collateral strength and consequently influence infarct growth. We sought to assess the utility of the HIR in predicting infarct growth in patients undergoing thrombectomy at a comprehensive stroke center (CSC). Methods: Consecutive acute ischemic stroke patients transferred to our CSC from 09/2010-11/2018 were identified and included if the following criteria were met: 1)computed tomography perfusion (CTP) imaging enabling assessment of baseline ischemic core volume and HIR 2) follow-up neuroimaging for assessment of final infarct volumes and 3)modified Thrombolysis In Cerebral Infarction scale (mTICI) 2c status or greater post-thrombectomy. Infarct growth rate (IGR) was calculated as the difference between infarct volume on follow-up imaging and the acute DWI lesion volume, divided by time from CTP to reperfusion in hours. Results: 461 patients (median age, 64 [55-75] years, median baseline NIHSS, 16 [12-21]) were eligible for this analysis. HIR poorly correlated with IGR (Spearman’s rho=0.001, p=0.89). An HIR cut-off of 0.5 was not able to discriminate ‘fast progressors’ (IGR>5 mL/hr) (AUC 0.42, sensitivity 40%, specificity 51%), or IGR at thresholds of either 2.5 or 10 mL/hr (AUC 0.44 and 0.49 respectively, with 95% confidence intervals [0.35-0.52] and [0.41-0.57], respectively). Similarly, an HIR of 0.5 only weakly distinguished ‘fast progression’ in patients reperfused beyond 120 min from imaging and patients with early CTP (last known well to CTP<6 hrs) (AUC 0.59, sensitivity 43%, specificity 68% and AUC 0.50, sensitivity 45%, specificity 55%). On multiple regression analysis, HIR was not predictive of infarct growth (regression equation=18.09+8.48x, F=2.46, p=0.11, R 2 =0.13) but was predictive of ‘fast progression’ (OR 0.22, 95% CI [0.09-0.60], p=0.003, pseudo-R 2 =0.16). Conclusions: Though predictive of fast progression, the HIR is a poor discriminator of infarct growth in successfully reperfused thrombectomy patients who undergo perfusion imaging at a CSC, and thus should not be factored into treatment decision-making.