BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Established Doppler parameters for carotid stenosis assessment do not reflect North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET)-style methodology. We derived a Doppler parameter, termed sonographic NASCET index (SNI), and hypothesized that the SNI would provide greater angiographic correlation and better accuracy in predicting stenosis of 70% or greater than that of currently used peak systolic velocity (PSV) measurements. METHODS: Inclusion criteria of angiographically proved carotid stenoses of 40-95% and measured proximal and distal internal carotid artery Doppler PSV values were established. Occlusions and near occlusions were specifically excluded. Doppler and angiographic data meeting the inclusion criteria from 32 carotid bifurcations were identified; actual angiographic stenoses ranged 40-89%. SNI values were calculated for each vessel. PSV and SNI were correlated with angiography by using linear regression analysis. Accuracies of SNI and PSV in predicting stenosis of 70% or greater were compared at two thresholds. RESULTS: Correlation between SNI and angiography was superior to that between PSV and angiography (r2=0.64 vs 0.38). PSV and SNI values that corresponded to 70% angiographic stenosis were 345 cm/s and 45.5, respectively. Accuracy of PSV of 345 cm/s or greater in predicting stenosis of 70% or greater was 78%, compared with 88% for SNI of 45.5 or greater. The SNI value that corresponded to a PSV threshold of 250 cm/s was 33. Accuracy of PSV of 250 cm/s or greater in predicting stenosis of 70% or greater was 81%, compared with 88% for SNI of 33 or greater. CONCLUSION: Correlation between SNI and angiography was greater than that between PSV and angiography. Accuracy of SNI in predicting stenosis of 70% or greater was also superior to that of PSV at two thresholds. These results suggest that SNI may be a better predictor of high-grade carotid stenosis than is PSV.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Established Doppler parameters for carotid stenosis assessment do not reflect North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET)-style methodology. We derived a Doppler parameter, termed sonographic NASCET index (SNI), and hypothesized that the SNI would provide greater angiographic correlation and better accuracy in predicting stenosis of 70% or greater than that of currently used peak systolic velocity (PSV) measurements. METHODS: Inclusion criteria of angiographically proved carotid stenoses of 40-95% and measured proximal and distal internal carotid artery Doppler PSV values were established. Occlusions and near occlusions were specifically excluded. Doppler and angiographic data meeting the inclusion criteria from 32 carotid bifurcations were identified; actual angiographic stenoses ranged 40-89%. SNI values were calculated for each vessel. PSV and SNI were correlated with angiography by using linear regression analysis. Accuracies of SNI and PSV in predicting stenosis of 70% or greater were compared at two thresholds. RESULTS: Correlation between SNI and angiography was superior to that between PSV and angiography (r2=0.64 vs 0.38). PSV and SNI values that corresponded to 70% angiographic stenosis were 345 cm/s and 45.5, respectively. Accuracy of PSV of 345 cm/s or greater in predicting stenosis of 70% or greater was 78%, compared with 88% for SNI of 45.5 or greater. The SNI value that corresponded to a PSV threshold of 250 cm/s was 33. Accuracy of PSV of 250 cm/s or greater in predicting stenosis of 70% or greater was 81%, compared with 88% for SNI of 33 or greater. CONCLUSION: Correlation between SNI and angiography was greater than that between PSV and angiography. Accuracy of SNI in predicting stenosis of 70% or greater was also superior to that of PSV at two thresholds. These results suggest that SNI may be a better predictor of high-grade carotid stenosis than is PSV.
Authors: G Soulez; E Therasse; P Robillard; A Fontaine; N Denbow; P Bourgouin; V L Oliva Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: E G Grant; A J Duerinckx; S El Saden; M L Melany; G Hathout; P Zimmerman; S N Cohen; R Singh; J D Baker Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: P M Rothwell; M Eliasziw; S A Gutnikov; A J Fox; D W Taylor; M R Mayberg; C P Warlow; H J M Barnett Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-01-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: H J Barnett; D W Taylor; M Eliasziw; A J Fox; G G Ferguson; R B Haynes; R N Rankin; G P Clagett; V C Hachinski; D L Sackett; K E Thorpe; H E Meldrum; J D Spence Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1998-11-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G L Moneta; J M Edwards; G Papanicolaou; T Hatsukami; L M Taylor; D E Strandness; J M Porter Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 1995-06 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Eric M Cheng; Dawn M Bravata; Suzie El-Saden; Stefanie D Vassar; Susan Ofner; Linda S Williams; Salomeh Keyhani Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nicolle Cassola; Jose Cc Baptista-Silva; Luis Cu Nakano; Carolina Dq Flumignan; Ricardo Sesso; Vladimir Vasconcelos; Nelson Carvas Junior; Ronald Lg Flumignan Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-07-11
Authors: Manuel Wallbach; Ellen Born; Deborah Kämpfer; Stephan Lüders; Gerhard A Müller; Rolf Wachter; Michael J Koziolek Journal: Clin Res Cardiol Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 5.460
Authors: Jason M Hostetter; James J Morrison; Michael Morris; Jean Jeudy; Kenneth C Wang; Eliot Siegel Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Katharine H Fraser; Christian Poelma; Bin Zhou; Eleni Bazigou; Meng-Xing Tang; Peter D Weinberg Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.118