BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: No previous study has compared the reliability of carotid artery measurement provided by axial images, shaded surface display (SSD), and maximum intensity projection (MIP). METHODS: Helical CT and conventional angiography were performed prospectively in 20 patients with atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery. Stenosis measurement was performed in a blinded fashion on angiography and CT by two independent examiners. Calcifications were segmented when they were located far enough from the vascular lumen. SSD and MIP were systematically performed for each carotid bifurcation. We measured stenosis using conventional angiography as standard and the different CT reconstructions (axial images, SSD, and MIP) by comparing the stenosis diameter at its narrowest point to the normal internal carotid artery. The degree of stenosis was classified into six groups: no stenosis, mild stenosis (< 30%), moderate stenosis (30% to 70%), severe stenosis (> 70%), near occlusion, and occlusion (100%). No measurement was made in cases of normal artery, near occlusion, and occlusion. RESULTS: Correlations between angiography and the three types of reconstruction were very good. Axial sections correctly classified the carotid arteries in 95% of cases. In 10 carotid arteries, stenosis was not assessable by SSD and MIP because of calcifications. In the remaining carotid arteries, MIP correctly classified the degree of stenosis in 96% of cases, whereas SSD misclassified 21% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that axial images provide a reliable evaluation of carotid artery stenosis. Calcifications are limiting factors in SSD or MIP. When atherosclerotic plaques are not calcified, MIP reconstructions provide a more reliable measurement of the vascular lumen than SSD.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: No previous study has compared the reliability of carotid artery measurement provided by axial images, shaded surface display (SSD), and maximum intensity projection (MIP). METHODS: Helical CT and conventional angiography were performed prospectively in 20 patients with atherosclerotic stenosis of the internal carotid artery. Stenosis measurement was performed in a blinded fashion on angiography and CT by two independent examiners. Calcifications were segmented when they were located far enough from the vascular lumen. SSD and MIP were systematically performed for each carotid bifurcation. We measured stenosis using conventional angiography as standard and the different CT reconstructions (axial images, SSD, and MIP) by comparing the stenosis diameter at its narrowest point to the normal internal carotid artery. The degree of stenosis was classified into six groups: no stenosis, mild stenosis (< 30%), moderate stenosis (30% to 70%), severe stenosis (> 70%), near occlusion, and occlusion (100%). No measurement was made in cases of normal artery, near occlusion, and occlusion. RESULTS: Correlations between angiography and the three types of reconstruction were very good. Axial sections correctly classified the carotid arteries in 95% of cases. In 10 carotid arteries, stenosis was not assessable by SSD and MIP because of calcifications. In the remaining carotid arteries, MIP correctly classified the degree of stenosis in 96% of cases, whereas SSD misclassified 21% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that axial images provide a reliable evaluation of carotid artery stenosis. Calcifications are limiting factors in SSD or MIP. When atherosclerotic plaques are not calcified, MIP reconstructions provide a more reliable measurement of the vascular lumen than SSD.
Authors: Michael H Lev; Javier M Romero; Daniel N F Goodman; Ranjit Bagga; H Young Kwon Kim; Neil A Clerk; Robert H Ackerman; R Gilberto Gonzalez Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2003 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: B B Ertl-Wagner; R Bruening; J Blume; R-T Hoffmann; S Mueller-Schunk; B Snyder; M F Reiser Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.825
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: J Weber; P Veith; B Jung; G Ihorst; O Moske-Eick; S Meckel; H Urbach; C A Taschner Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 3.649