Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 12, 2025
Optimized Management of Endovascular Treatment for Acute Ischemic Stroke
Published on: January 18, 2018
Ghost infarct core following endovascular reperfusion: A risk for computed tomography perfusion misguided selection
Gabriel M Rodrigues1, Mahmoud H Mohammaden1, Diogo C Haussen1
1Marcus Stroke & Neuroscience Center, Grady Memorial Hospital and Department of Neurology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Background:
Computed tomography perfusion (CTP) has been increasingly used for patient selection in mechanical thrombectomy for stroke. However, previous studies suggested that CTP might overestimate the infarct size. The term ghost infarct core (GIC) has been used to describe an overestimation of the final infarct volumes by pre-treatment CTP of >10 ml.
Aim:
We sought to study the frequency and predictors of GIC.
Methods:
A prospectively collected mechanical thrombectomy database at a comprehensive stroke center between September 2010 and August 2020 was reviewed. Patients were included if they had a successful reperfusion (mTICI2b-3), a pre-procedure CTP, and final infarct volume measured on follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of GIC.
Results:
Among 923 eligible patients (median [IQR] age, 64 [55-75] years; NIHSS, 16 [11-21]; onset to reperfusion time, 436.5 [286-744.5] min), GIC was identified in 77 (8.3%) of the overall patients and in 14% (47/335) of those reperfused within 6 h of symptom onset. The median overestimation volume was 23.2 [16.4-38.3] mL. GIC was associated with higher NIHSS score, larger areas of infarct core and tissue at risk on CTP, unfavorable collateral scores, and shorter times from onset to image acquisition and to reperfusion as compared to non-GIC. Patients with GIC had smaller median final infarct volumes (10.7 vs. 27.1 ml, p < 0.001), higher chances of functional independence (76.2% vs. 55.5%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 3.829, 95% CI [1.505-9.737], p = 0.005), lower disability (one-point-mRS improvement, aOR 1.761, 95% CI [1.044-2.981], p = 0.03), and lower mortality (6.3% vs. 15%, aOR 0.119, 95% CI [0.014-0.984], p = 0.048) at 90 days. On multivariable analysis, time from onset to reperfusion ≤6 h (OR 3.184, 95% CI [1.743-5.815], p < 0.001), poor collaterals (OR 2.688, 95% CI [1.466-4.931], p = 0.001), and higher NIHSS score (OR 1.060, 95% CI [1.010-1.113], p = 0.018) were independent predictors of GIC.
Conclusion:
GIC is a relatively common entity, particularly in patients with poor collateral status, higher baseline NIHSS score, and early presentation, and is associated with more favorable outcomes. Patients should not be excluded from reperfusion therapies on the sole basis of CTP findings, especially in the early window.
