Literature DB >> 14764932

Concordance rate differences of 3 noninvasive imaging techniques to measure carotid stenosis in clinical routine practice: results of the CARMEDAS multicenter study.

Michel Nonent1, Jean-Michel Serfaty, Norbert Nighoghossian, François Rouhart, Laurent Derex, Carmen Rotaru, Pierre Chirossel, Bruno Guias, Jean-François Heautot, Pierre Gouny, Bernard Langella, Valérie Buthion, Isabelle Jars, Chahin Pachai, Charles Veyret, Jean-Yves Gauvrit, Michel Lamure, Philippe C Douek.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: To replace digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in carotid stenosis evaluation, noninvasive imaging techniques have to reach a high concordance rate. Our purpose is to compare the concordance rates of contrast-enhanced MR angiography (CEMRA) and CT angiography (CTA) with Doppler ultrasound (DUS) in clinical routine practice.
METHODS: We evaluated prospectively with DUS, CEMRA, and CTA 150 patients suspected of carotid stenosis. The overall concordance rates of the 3 techniques were calculated for symptomatic stenosis > or =50% and > or =70%, for asymptomatic stenosis > or =60%, and for occlusion. For the carotid arteries treated by surgery (n=97), the results of each method and combined techniques were recorded, and misclassification rates were evaluated from surgical reports.
RESULTS: The overall concordance rates of DUS-CEMRA, DUS-CTA, and CEMRA-CTA were not statistically different. However, the concordance rate of DUS-CEMRA (92.53%) was significantly higher than that for DUS-CTA (79.10%) in the surgical asymptomatic stenosis group (P=0.0258). CTA considered alone would misclassify the stenosis in a significant number of cases (11 of 64) in the surgical asymptomatic group compared with CEMRA (3 of 67) and DUS (1 of 66) (P=0.0186 versus MRA, P=0.0020 versus DUS).
CONCLUSIONS: With the techniques as utilized in our study, the overall concordance rates of combined noninvasive methods are similar for measuring carotid stenosis in clinical routine practice, but in asymptomatic carotid stenosis, the decision making for surgery is significantly altered if DUS and CTA are considered in place of DUS and CEMRA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14764932     DOI: 10.1161/01.STR.0000117251.65222.DA

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stroke        ISSN: 0039-2499            Impact factor:   7.914


  14 in total

1.  [CTA of carotid artery with different scanner types].

Authors:  M Lell; K Anders; C Leidecker; W Lang; W Bautz; M Uder
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 2.  Concordance rates of Doppler ultrasound and CT angiography in the grading of carotid artery stenosis: a systematic literature review.

Authors:  Chiara Zavanone; Emma Ragone; Yves Samson
Journal:  J Neurol       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 4.849

Review 3.  Cross-sectional vascular imaging with CT and MR angiography.

Authors:  Hasan K Kabul; Klaus D Hagspiel
Journal:  J Nucl Cardiol       Date:  2006 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.952

4.  Composition of the stable carotid plaque: insights from a multidetector computed tomography study of plaque volume.

Authors:  Kiran R Nandalur; Andrew D Hardie; Prashant Raghavan; Matthew J Schipper; Erol Baskurt; Christopher M Kramer
Journal:  Stroke       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 7.914

5.  Diagnostic accuracy of colour Doppler ultrasonography, CT angiography and blood-pool-enhanced MR angiography in assessing carotid stenosis: a comparative study with DSA in 170 patients.

Authors:  M Anzidei; A Napoli; F Zaccagna; P Di Paolo; L Saba; B Cavallo Marincola; C Zini; G Cartocci; L Di Mare; C Catalano; R Passariello
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2011-03-07       Impact factor: 3.469

6.  Comparison of blood flow velocity quantification by 4D flow MR imaging with ultrasound at the carotid bifurcation.

Authors:  A Harloff; T Zech; F Wegent; C Strecker; C Weiller; M Markl
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 3.825

7.  Direct comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for characterization of posterior left atrial morphology.

Authors:  Joan M Lacomis; Karen Pealer; Carl R Fuhrman; Dale Barley; William Wigginton; David Schwartzman
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2006-10-03       Impact factor: 1.900

8.  Evaluation of carotid artery stenosis with multisection CT and MR imaging: influence of imaging modality and postprocessing.

Authors:  M Lell; C Fellner; U Baum; T Hothorn; R Steiner; W Lang; W Bautz; F A Fellner
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 9.  Use of magnetic resonance imaging to predict outcome after stroke: a review of experimental and clinical evidence.

Authors:  Tracy D Farr; Susanne Wegener
Journal:  J Cereb Blood Flow Metab       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 6.200

Review 10.  Role of cardiac and extracranial vascular CT in the evaluation/management of cerebral ischemia and stroke.

Authors:  Shahmir Kamalian; Shervin Kamalian; Stuart R Pomerantz; Teerath P Tanpitukpongse; Rajiv Gupta; Javier M Romero; Douglas S Katz
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2013-03-22
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.