Anat Horev1, Asaf Honig2, Jose E Cohen3, Adi Goldbart4, Yotam Dizitzer4, Michael Star1, John M Gomori5, Yair Zlotnik1, Gal Ifergane1, Vladimir Borodetsky6, Ilan Shelef6, Ronen R Leker7. 1. Neurology Department, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva, Israel. 2. Neurology Department, Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. Electronic address: Asaf.honig2@gmail.com. 3. Neurosurgery Department, Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. 4. Research Center, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva, Israel. 5. Radiology Institute, Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel. 6. Radiology Institute, Soroka University Medical Center, Beer-Sheva, Israel. 7. Neurology Department, Hadassah University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Symptomatic carotid stenosis is responsible for 10% of all strokes. Currently, CT angiography (CTA) is the main diagnostic tool for carotid stenosis. It is frequently the only diagnostic test preceding recommendations for carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the specificity of CTA, especially in patients with 50-70% stenosis, was previously reported to be relatively low. Most studies testing the diagnostic accuracy of CTA were published more than a decade ago. Therefore, we aimed to test the diagnostic accuracy of CTA, performed with current available technology, compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in patients with carotid stenosis. This study aims to characterize patients who were candidates for CAS/CEA based on CTA, but may not require it based on DSA. METHODS: Consecutive candidates for carotid interventions (CAS or CEA) following CTA were identified from prospectively maintained stroke center registries at two large academic centers. As part of our institutional practice all patients had a routine pre-procedural diagnostic DSA. In each patient, degree of carotid stenosis was compared between CTA and DSA. Patients with concordant degree of stenosis on DSA and CTA (true positive group) were compared to patients with a discordant degree of stenosis with less than 50% on DSA (false positive group). RESULTS: Out of 90 patients with significant stenosis on CTA, only 70 (78%) were found to have a significant stenosis on DSA. Severe plaque calcification was significantly more common in the false-positive group. In those patients whose CTA reported stenosis of ≥90%, we found a strong agreement between CTA and DSA (positive predictive value [PPV] - 0.9) for a significant stenosis (≥50%). Conversely, the correlation between CTA and DSA in patients with CTA reported 50-70% stenosis was poor (PPV - 0.29) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that despite ongoing radiological progress, the specificity of CTA in accurately assessing carotid stenosis remains relatively low in patients with both moderate stenosis and heavily calcified plaques. Consequently, patients could possibly be referred for unnecessary CEA surgery and may become exposed to associated potential complications.
BACKGROUND: Symptomatic carotid stenosis is responsible for 10% of all strokes. Currently, CT angiography (CTA) is the main diagnostic tool for carotid stenosis. It is frequently the only diagnostic test preceding recommendations for carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, the specificity of CTA, especially in patients with 50-70% stenosis, was previously reported to be relatively low. Most studies testing the diagnostic accuracy of CTA were published more than a decade ago. Therefore, we aimed to test the diagnostic accuracy of CTA, performed with current available technology, compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in patients with carotid stenosis. This study aims to characterize patients who were candidates for CAS/CEA based on CTA, but may not require it based on DSA. METHODS: Consecutive candidates for carotid interventions (CAS or CEA) following CTA were identified from prospectively maintained stroke center registries at two large academic centers. As part of our institutional practice all patients had a routine pre-procedural diagnostic DSA. In each patient, degree of carotid stenosis was compared between CTA and DSA. Patients with concordant degree of stenosis on DSA and CTA (true positive group) were compared to patients with a discordant degree of stenosis with less than 50% on DSA (false positive group). RESULTS: Out of 90 patients with significant stenosis on CTA, only 70 (78%) were found to have a significant stenosis on DSA. Severe plaque calcification was significantly more common in the false-positive group. In those patients whose CTA reported stenosis of ≥90%, we found a strong agreement between CTA and DSA (positive predictive value [PPV] - 0.9) for a significant stenosis (≥50%). Conversely, the correlation between CTA and DSA in patients with CTA reported 50-70% stenosis was poor (PPV - 0.29) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that despite ongoing radiological progress, the specificity of CTA in accurately assessing carotid stenosis remains relatively low in patients with both moderate stenosis and heavily calcified plaques. Consequently, patients could possibly be referred for unnecessary CEA surgery and may become exposed to associated potential complications.