T Forjoe1, M Asad Rahi2. 1. Manchester Medical School , Manchester , UK. 2. Regional Vascular Centre, Royal Preston Hospital , Preston , UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We reviewed the literature for preoperative computed tomography carotid angiography and/or carotid duplex to determine their respective sensitivity and specificity in assessing the degree of carotid stenosis. We aimed to identify whether one imaging modality can accurately identify critical stenosis in patients presenting with transient ischaemic attack or symptoms of a cerebrovascular accident requiring carotid endarterectomy. METHODS: Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, all Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal club, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment and NHS Economic Evaluation Database) for primary studies relating to computed tomography carotid angiography (CTA) and/or carotid duplex ultrasound (CDU). Studies included were published between 1990 and 2018 and focused on practice in the UK, Europe and North America. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of CTA and CDU are comparable. CDU is safe and readily available in the clinical environment hence its use in the initial preoperative assessment of carotid stenosis. CDU is an adequate imaging modality for determining stenosis greater than 70%; sensitivity and specificity are improved when the criteria for determining greater than 70% stenosis are adjusted. Vascular laboratories opting to use duplex as their sole imaging modality should assess the sensitivity and specificity of their own duplex procedure before altering practice to preoperative single imaging for patients. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity and specificity of CTA (90.6% and 93%, respectively) and CDU (92.3% and 89%, respectively) are comparable. Both are dependent on criteria used in vascular laboratories. CDU sensitivity and specificity was improved to 98.7% and 94.1%, respectively, where peak systolic velocity and end diastolic velocity were assessed. Either modality can be used to determine greater than 70% stenosis, although a secondary imaging modality may be required for cases of greater than 50% stenosis.
INTRODUCTION: We reviewed the literature for preoperative computed tomography carotid angiography and/or carotid duplex to determine their respective sensitivity and specificity in assessing the degree of carotid stenosis. We aimed to identify whether one imaging modality can accurately identify critical stenosis in patients presenting with transient ischaemic attack or symptoms of a cerebrovascular accident requiring carotid endarterectomy. METHODS: Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, all Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal club, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment and NHS Economic Evaluation Database) for primary studies relating to computed tomography carotid angiography (CTA) and/or carotid duplex ultrasound (CDU). Studies included were published between 1990 and 2018 and focused on practice in the UK, Europe and North America. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of CTA and CDU are comparable. CDU is safe and readily available in the clinical environment hence its use in the initial preoperative assessment of carotid stenosis. CDU is an adequate imaging modality for determining stenosis greater than 70%; sensitivity and specificity are improved when the criteria for determining greater than 70% stenosis are adjusted. Vascular laboratories opting to use duplex as their sole imaging modality should assess the sensitivity and specificity of their own duplex procedure before altering practice to preoperative single imaging for patients. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity and specificity of CTA (90.6% and 93%, respectively) and CDU (92.3% and 89%, respectively) are comparable. Both are dependent on criteria used in vascular laboratories. CDU sensitivity and specificity was improved to 98.7% and 94.1%, respectively, where peak systolic velocity and end diastolic velocity were assessed. Either modality can be used to determine greater than 70% stenosis, although a secondary imaging modality may be required for cases of greater than 50% stenosis.
Authors: Konstantinos A Filis; Frank R Arko; Bonnie L Johnson; Iraklis I Pipinos; E John Harris; Cornelius Olcott; Christopher K Zarins Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2002-07-16 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: S G Patel; D A Collie; J M Wardlaw; S C Lewis; A R Wright; R J Gibson; R J Sellar Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Paul J Nederkoorn; Willem P Th M Mali; Bert C Eikelboom; Otto E H Elgersma; Erik Buskens; M G Myriam Hunink; L Jaap Kappelle; Pieter C Buijs; Aloys F J Wüst; Aad van der Lugt; Yolanda van der Graaf Journal: Stroke Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 7.914