Back to Authors

Pahl, Elfriede

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8209-0964

Mayo Clinic

Northwestern University

Citations 2

Abstract 295: Prospective comparison of core and penumbra volumes from two CT perfusion quantification software packages
Wolfe, Jared , Mendis, D. A. , Beegle, Richard D. , Johnny, Shinn-Nan, Nord, Charisse A., Pahl, Elfriede , Wood, Stephen , FERNANDEZ, CLAIRE, English, S., Demaerschalk, Bart M. , Pahl, E., Wood, S., Woodhead, Zoe , Carone, Davide , Harston, George

Stroke: Vascular and Interventional Neurology | December 2, 2025 | Volume: 5 | Issue: S1 | Pages: No page available

10.1161/svi270000_295 Get It

Introduction Software packages for quantification of CT perfusion parameters allow quick visualization of perfusion deficits to support clinical decision making in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Several packages are now commercially available for automated quantification of ischemic core, penumbra volumes, and mismatch ratios to indicate eligibility for reperfusion therapies. This study explored the agreement between two software packages, Brainomix 360 e‐CTP and Rapid CTP, in prospective, real‐world use. Methods Consecutive patients scanned for suspected stroke at three comprehensive stroke centers over 90 days from May to July 2024 were included in the study. Eligibility for the current analysis was limited to discharge diagnosis of AIS and CTP imaging processed by both Brainomix and Rapid software. Software processing was conducted in real time after image acquisition. The presence of large vessel occlusion (LVO) was determined from review of electronic medical records. CTP core (CBF<30%) and penumbra (Tmax>6s) volumes from Brainomix and Rapid were recorded for each case. Mismatch ratios were calculated (penumbra÷core volume); positive mismatch was defined according to DEFUSE‐3 criteria (core<70ml, penumbra>15ml, mismatch ratio > 1.8). The correlations and linear regressions between Brainomix and Rapid were computed for core, penumbra and mismatch ratios, and their concordance for mismatch positivity was assessed. Results 137 patients were scanned and received a final diagnosis of AIS. Of these, only 38 had imaging processed by both Brainomix and Rapid. Median age was 69 years (interquartile range: 57‐77.5y); 16 (42%) were female; 13 (34%) had LVO. Linear models between Brainomix and Rapid's outputs for CBF and Tmax volumes are shown in Figure 1a and 1b. The correlation between software outputs for CBF volume was r=0.70 (p<.001), and for Tmax volume was r=0.72 (p<.001). Mismatch ratios were calculated for the 13 cases with LVO (Figure 1c). The linear model between mismatch ratios was not significant, with four Rapid outputs showing infinite mismatch ratios (due to having CBF volumes of 0ml). Concordance between software for mismatch positivity was good; 8/13 cases showed mismatch on both softwares; 1 case showed mismatch on Brainomix only; 1 for Rapid only; and 3 cases showed mismatch on neither software. Conclusion This prospective study, despite limited sample size (N=38), showed good correlations between Brainomix 360 e‐CTP and Rapid CTP for calculation of both core and penumbra volumes. Although mismatch ratios showed less agreement, the categorization of mismatch positivity showed good concordance between software platforms. image
Everolimus and Low-Dose Tacrolimus After Heart Transplant in Children
Almond, Christopher S. , Alejos, Juan , Ameduri, Rebecca , Barkoff, L., Barnes, Aliessa, Butto, Arene , Carlo, Waldemar F. , Chrisant, Maryanne , Dreyer, William J. , Everitt, Melanie D. , Gonzales, S., Hollander, Seth A. , Kindel, Steven J. , Klein, Gloria L., Lamour, Jacqueline M. , Lee, Joanne , Lü, Minmin , Lytrivi, Irene D. , Miyamoto, Shelley D. , Pahl, Elfriede , Peng, David M. , Sutcliffe, David , Ybarra, A., Zangwill, Steven , Rossano, Joseph W. , Investigators, TEAMMATE Trial, Choi, Jua , Wilber, Jared, Sutherland, Scott M. , Feng, Dana, Lagerborg, Kendra, Burns, Julia, Nikolli, Kledja, Twombly, Adrianna, Massey, Linda K., Wartick, Jennifer, Yohannes, Kifle, Gupta, Akanksha , Major, Melissa , Blume, Elizabeth D. , Esteso, Paul , VanderPluym, Christina , Bastardi, Heather , MacLean, Matthew T. , Haschke, Paul, Gibbons, Taylor , Vu, Courtney , Reilly, Sydney, Ha, Lynne, Boyle, Carley, Robie, Sharon L., Ogata, Kay, Knecht, Carlos, Browne, Lorna P. , Malone, LaDonna J. , Gordon, Megyn, Molina, Kimberly , Cabrera, Antonio G. , Lambert, Linda, Fullerton, Chase, Thompson, Kate J., Cardon, Michelle, Timmer, Amanda, Nelson, Michelle , Ramstack, Dani, Heyrend, Carly, Benefield, Emily C., Roberson, Teresa, Butts, Ryan J. , Martinez, Maria , Pottorre, Simi, Burgardt, Laura, Armstrong, Blake, Zamberlan, M. , McCormick, Amanda D. , Bartsch, Jaynee, Mahle, William T. , Burnett, Meilssa, Pietra, Biagio A. , Breault, Leah, Friedland‐Little, Joshua , Prakash, Ranjini, Lee, Anne CC , Brody, Linnea, Huberts, Avery, Noon, Kelli, Guadiz, Donna, Garcia, Allison, Addonizio, Linda J. , Repp, Arielle, Cornelius, C.E. , Abraham, Margaret, Rose-Felker, Kristen, Moninger, Allison, Huston, Allison, Berman, Pamela, Ploutz, Michelle , Wisotzkey, Bethany , Grohall, Stacey, Colon, April, Churosh, Jenny, Cordova, Renee, Smith, Paulette, Kornetsky, Susan , Mitchell, Anna, Alderson, Daniel, Dominguez, R Blanco, Gawlowicz, Kennan, Lipsitz, Stuart R. , Eisen, Howard J. , Jeewa, Aamir , Uber, Patricia A., Thakar, Rahul, Ellsworth, Darrell L. , McCormick, A , Peng, D M , Daly, Kevin P , Albers, Erin L. , Auerbach, Scott R. , Bock, Matthew J. , Castleberry, Chesney , Deshpande, Shriprasad R. , Feingold, Brian , Lal, Ashwin K. , Ryan, Thomas D. , Singh, Tajinder P. , Su, Jennifer A. , Sleeper, Lynn A. , Investigators, TEAMMATE Trial, Wilber, Jared, Nikolli, Kledja, Massey, Linda, Wartick, Jennifer, Major, Melissa, MacLean, Matthew, Lee, JungWoo, Joong, Anna , Reilly, Sydney, Kuhn, Michael, Ogata, Kay, Knecht, Carol, Gordon, Megyn, Hansen, Lisa, May, Lindsay J. , Lambert, Linda, Fullerton, Chase, Thompson, Kate, Timmer, Amanda, Heyrend, Carly, Martinez, Maria, Schumacher, Kurt R. , Lim, Heang M. , Bartsch, Jaynee, Burnett, Meilssa, Prakash, Ranjini, Lee, Anne CC , Brody, Linnea, Huberts, Avery, Noon, Kelli, Guadiz, Donna, Repp, Arielle, Bansal, Neha , Hsu, Daphne T. , Cornelius, Chelsea, Padilla, Luz A. , Churosh, Jenny, Cordova, Renee, Mitchell, Anna, Alderson, Daniel, Dominguez, Robleinscky, KOBASHIGAWA, JON A. , Wightman, Aaron G.

JAMA | September 17, 2025 | Volume: 334 | Issue: 15 | Pages: 1339

10.1001/jama.2025.14338 Get It

ImportanceStudies suggest that everolimus may reduce the risk of rejection, cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and cytomegalovirus (CMV) after heart transplant. Everolimus use is controversial because of data demonstrating higher infection deaths when everolimus is introduced de novo after transplant. It is unclear whether everolimus is safe and effective when initiated at 6 months posttransplant in children, a population in which median graft survival is limited to 15 years and randomized clinical trials are lacking.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of everolimus combined with low-dose tacrolimus to prevent major adverse transplant events (MATEs) in children after heart transplant.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsMulticenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial enrolling 211 patients who were alive 6 months after pediatric heart transplant at 25 US sites from February 2018 to August 2020. The last date of follow-up was April 17, 2023.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus (n = 107) or standard-dose tacrolimus and mycophenolate mofetil (n = 104) for 30 months.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy end point was the MATE-3 score at 30 months, a validated composite ordinal end point including acute cellular rejection, CAV, and CKD. The primary safety end point was the MATE-6 score, encompassing the MATE-3 score plus antibody-mediated rejection, infection, and posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorder.ResultsAmong 211 children randomized, the mean age was 8.2 (SD, 6.3) years, 97 (46%) underwent transplant for congenital heart disease, and 49 (23%) were treated for rejection before 6 months. At 30 months, the mean MATE-3 score did not differ between the 2 treatment groups (mean difference, −0.32; 95% CI, −0.90 to 0.20; P = .16). The mean MATE-6 score was no higher in the everolimus group than in the mycophenolate group (baseline-adjusted mean difference, −0.40; 95% CI, −1.81 to 0.93), meeting the success criterion for safety (noninferiority margin &amp;lt;3). There were no differences in graft survival, MATE-free survival, or freedom from any individual MATE. Everolimus was associated with greater improvement in estimated glomerular filtration rate at 12 months (mean difference, 10.5 mL/min/1.73 m2; 95% CI, 1.09-19.91 mL/min/1.73 m2) and a lower incidence of CMV infection (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.93).Conclusions and RelevanceAmong 6-month pediatric heart transplant survivors, everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus did not differ from tacrolimus and mycophenolate in preventing the composite of cellular rejection, CAV, and CKD at 30 months. However, everolimus and low-dose tacrolimus appear to be safe based on the total burden of 6 MATEs and may be associated with improved kidney function and less CMV infection.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03386539