Background: Automated ASPECTS has the potential of reducing interobserver variability in the determination of early ischemic changes. We aimed to assess the performance of an automated ASPECTS vs. ASPECTS interpreted for sent CT images on WhatsApp and to correlate these results with the outcome.Materials and Methods: Patients with anterior circulation stroke who had baseline NCCT and underwent successful IV-thrombolysis were included. NCCT-ASPECTS was assessed by two neuroradiologists, and discrepancies were resolved by agreement. Two groups of patients were included; group 1, where treatment was decided after an automated ASPECTS interpretation that was provided by RAPID software, and group 2, where patients received IV-tPA after an assessment of CT images sent on WhatsApp.Results: A total of 122 patients were included: 36 in group 1 and 86 in group 2. In group 2, the interobserver agreement for NCCT ASPECTS was moderate (κ = 0.36), as was the dichotomized data (κ = 0.44). IOA, however, improved (to κ = 0.57 and κ = 0.64) when the same CT images were interpreted on a workstation. In group 1, Automated ASPECTS showed excellent agreement (κ = 0.80) with agreement reads for workstation images. There were significantly (P < 0.001) increased odds of functional independence and fewer hemorrhagic complications with thrombolyzed patients in group 1.Conclusions: Automated ASPECTS provided by the RAPID@IschemaView ASPECTS performs at a level equal to the agreement read of expert neuroradiologists, and this performance was severely degraded when WhatsApp captured CT images used for ASPECTS assessment. In our study, we found that automated ASPECTS might predict outcomes after IV thrombolysis.

No abstract