BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Compared with the single-detector technique, multi-detector row CT angiography permits larger anatomic coverage that includes both the epiaortic and entire carotid circulations. We evaluated the accuracy of multi-detector row CT angiography by using multiplanar reformation (MPR) for measuring carotid artery diameters compared with that of rotational angiography. We also evaluated the diagnostic performance of CT angiography compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA). METHODS: In 35 patients, CT angiograms of 70 carotid arteries were compared with DSA images, and CT angiograms of 33 carotid arteries were compared with rotational angiograms. CT angiographic interpretation was performed first interactively at a workstation. Diameter measurements of normal and stenosed carotid arteries were performed on cross-sectional and oblique sagittal MPRs. Degree of stenosis was calculated per North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria independently by two observers for each technique. RESULTS: Degree of stenosis was slightly underestimated with CT angiography, with mean differences (+/- SD) per observer of 6.9 +/- 17.6% and 10.7 +/- 16.1% for cross-sectional and 2.8 +/- 19.2% and 9.1 +/- 16.8% for oblique sagittal MPRs compared with rotational angiography. CT angiography was somewhat inaccurate for measuring the absolute minimal diameter of high-grade stenoses. On symptomatic sides (n = 35), interactive CT angiographic interpretation combined with MPR measurements for lesions with a visual estimate of 50% or greater stenosis achieved a sensitivity of 95% (20/21) and specificity of 93% (13/14) in the detection of carotid stenosis (>/= 50%) verified with DSA. CONCLUSION: Regardless of slight underestimation of carotid stenosis with CT angiography compared with rotational angiography, diagnostic performance of CT angiography with interactive interpretation proved to be good. Also, the method is highly sensitive for detection of carotid artery stenosis, indicating the suitability of CT angiography as a screening method for symptomatic patients. For hemodynamically significant stenoses revealed by CT angiographic screening, conventional angiography still seems to be necessary.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Compared with the single-detector technique, multi-detector row CT angiography permits larger anatomic coverage that includes both the epiaortic and entire carotid circulations. We evaluated the accuracy of multi-detector row CT angiography by using multiplanar reformation (MPR) for measuring carotid artery diameters compared with that of rotational angiography. We also evaluated the diagnostic performance of CT angiography compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA). METHODS: In 35 patients, CT angiograms of 70 carotid arteries were compared with DSA images, and CT angiograms of 33 carotid arteries were compared with rotational angiograms. CT angiographic interpretation was performed first interactively at a workstation. Diameter measurements of normal and stenosed carotid arteries were performed on cross-sectional and oblique sagittal MPRs. Degree of stenosis was calculated per North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria independently by two observers for each technique. RESULTS: Degree of stenosis was slightly underestimated with CT angiography, with mean differences (+/- SD) per observer of 6.9 +/- 17.6% and 10.7 +/- 16.1% for cross-sectional and 2.8 +/- 19.2% and 9.1 +/- 16.8% for oblique sagittal MPRs compared with rotational angiography. CT angiography was somewhat inaccurate for measuring the absolute minimal diameter of high-grade stenoses. On symptomatic sides (n = 35), interactive CT angiographic interpretation combined with MPR measurements for lesions with a visual estimate of 50% or greater stenosis achieved a sensitivity of 95% (20/21) and specificity of 93% (13/14) in the detection of carotid stenosis (>/= 50%) verified with DSA. CONCLUSION: Regardless of slight underestimation of carotid stenosis with CT angiography compared with rotational angiography, diagnostic performance of CT angiography with interactive interpretation proved to be good. Also, the method is highly sensitive for detection of carotid artery stenosis, indicating the suitability of CT angiography as a screening method for symptomatic patients. For hemodynamically significant stenoses revealed by CT angiographic screening, conventional angiography still seems to be necessary.
Authors: Max Wintermark; Christine Glastonbury; Elizabeth Tong; Benison C Lau; Sarah Schaeffer; Jeffrey D Chien; Peter J Haar; David Saloner Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2008-01-29 Impact factor: 3.181
Authors: Joshua E Preiss; Dina S Itum; James G Reeves; Yazan Duwaryi; Ravi Rajani; Ravi Veeraswamy; Atef Salam; Thomas F Dodson; Luke P Brewster Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Leslie Bleeker; Henk A Marquering; René van den Berg; Paul J Nederkoorn; Charles B Majoie Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2011-12-30 Impact factor: 2.804