Viz LVO versus Rapid LVO in detection of large vessel occlusion on CT angiography for acute stroke

BackgroundEndovascular thrombectomy improves outcomes and reduces mortality for large vessel occlusion (LVO) and is time-sensitive. Computer automation may aid in the early detection of LVOs, but false values may lead to alarm desensitization. We compared Viz LVO and Rapid LVO for automated LVO detection.MethodsData were retrospectively extracted from Rapid LVO and Viz LVO running concurrently from January 2022 to January 2023 on CT angiography (CTA) images compared with a radiologist interpretation. We calculated diagnostic accuracy measures and performed a McNemar test to look for a difference between the algorithms’ errors. We collected demographic data, comorbidities, ejection fraction (EF), and imaging features and performed a multiple logistic regression to determine if any of these variables predicted the incorrect classification of LVO on CTA.Results360 participants were included, with 47 large vessel occlusions. Viz LVO and Rapid LVO had a specificity of 0.96 and 0.85, a sensitivity of 0.87 and 0.87, a positive predictive value of 0.75 and 0.46, and a negative predictive value of 0.98 and 0.97, respectively. A McNemar test on correct and incorrect classifications showed a statistically significant difference between the two algorithms’ errors (P=0.00000031). A multiple logistic regression showed that low EF (Viz P=0.00125, Rapid P=0.0286) and Modified Woodcock Score >1 (Viz P=0.000198, Rapid P=0.000000975) were significant predictors of incorrect classification.ConclusionRapid LVO produced a significantly larger number of false positive values that may contribute to alarm desensitization, leading to missed alarms or delayed responses. EF and intracranial atherosclerosis were significant predictors of incorrect predictions.