Location-specific ASPECTS does not improve Outcome Prediction in Large Vessel Occlusion compared to Cumulative ASPECTS

PURPOSE: Individual regions of the Alberta Stroke Programme Early CT Score (ASPECTS) may contribute differently to the clinical symptoms in large vessel occlusion (LVO). Here, we investigated whether the predictive performance on clinical outcome can be increased by considering specific ASPECTS subregions. METHODS: A consecutive series of patients with LVO affecting the middle cerebral artery territory and subsequent endovascular treatment (EVT) between January 2015 and July 2020 was analyzed, including affected ASPECTS regions. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess the individual impact of ASPECTS regions on good clinical outcome (defined as modified Rankin scale after 90 days of 0–2). Machine-learning-driven logistic regression models were trained (training = 70%, testing = 30%) to predict good clinical outcome using i) cumulative ASPECTS and ii) location-specific ASPECTS, and their performance compared using deLong’s test. Furthermore, additional analyses using binarized as well as linear clinical outcomes using regression and machine-learning techniques were applied to thoroughly assess the potential predictive properties of individual ASPECTS regions and their combinations. RESULTS: Of 1109 patients (77.3 years ± 11.6, 43.8% male), 419 achieved a good clinical outcome and a median NIHSS after 24 h of 12 (interquartile range, IQR 4–21). Individual ASPECTS regions showed different impact on good clinical outcome in the multivariate logistic regression, with strongest effects for insula (odds ratio, OR 0.56, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.42–0.75) and M5 (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29–0.97) regions. Accuracy (ACC) in predicting good clinical outcome of the test set did not differ between when considering i) cumulative ASPECTS and ii) location-specific ASPECTS (ACC = 0.619, 95% CI 0.58–0.64 vs. ACC = 0.629, 95% CI 0.60–0.65; p = 0.933). CONCLUSION: Cumulative ASPECTS assessment in LVO remains a stable and reliable predictor for clinical outcome and is not inferior to a weighted (location-specific) ASPECTS assessment. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00062-022-01258-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.