Feasibility of Using Cardiac CTA in Ischemic Stroke Workup - A Real-World Pilot Study
Nitin Ramanujam Chakravarthula1, Marcus Milani3, Megan Tessmer2, Abbey Staugaitis2, Christopher Streib1
1Neurology, 2Emergency Medicine, University of Minnesota, 3University of Minnesota
Objective:
To assess the feasibility of cardiac CT angiography (CCTA) in routine ischemic stroke workup.
Background:
Echocardiography, the current gold standard for evaluating cardioembolic sources of acute ischemic stroke (AIS), is relatively low-yield, not readily available at all hospitals, and may delay treatment and disposition. CCTA offers superior visualization of cardiac structures, but is not a standard practice. We report the preliminary results of a pilot study assessing the feasibility of integrating CCTA into routine AIS and transient ischemic attack (TIA) evaluation.
Design/Methods:
In 2024, we incorporated CCTA as a standard of care diagnostic evaluation in ischemic stroke workup. CCTA was either integrated with CT angiograms of the head/neck utilizing a single contrast bolus or performed as a standalone study. We report the demographics, stroke characteristics, type of CCTA obtained, image quality, time taken, contrast dose, and radiation exposure using descriptive statistics.
Results:
Our study population consisted of 88 patients with the final diagnosis of AIS (70) and TIA (18). The median (IQR) age was 70 (65-80) and NIH Stroke Scale was 2.5 (0-9). 48.9% were female. Standalone CCTA (70) was more common than integrated CCTA (18). 90% had good imaging quality. The addition of CCTA to a patients conventional CTA Head/Neck increased radiation exposure by an average of 4.56 mSv, increased scanning time by 1 minute 19 seconds, and did not have a marked impact on the amount of contrast administered 98 mL vs 96 mL.
Conclusions:
In our real-world pilot study, CCTA demonstrated feasibility and provided good quality images for routine AIS evaluation. This occurred at the cost of increased radiation and scanning time, but not contrast dose.
Disclaimer: Abstracts were not reviewed by Neurology® and do not reflect the views of Neurology® editors or staff.