(Stroke. 1996;27:1951-1957.)
© 1996 American Heart Association, Inc.
Articles |
An Approach for the Use of Doppler Ultrasound as a Screening Tool for Hemodynamically Significant Stenosis (Despite Heterogeneity of Doppler Performance)
A Multicenter Experience
the Department of Public Health Sciences (G.H., J.F.T.) and the Stroke Center (G.H., V.J.H., A.M.J., J.F.T.), Bowman Gray School of Medicine of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC; Section of Vascular Surgery, Loyola University Medical School, Maywood, Ill (W.H.B.); and the Department of Biostatistics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC (L.E.C.).
Background and Purpose The Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study (ACAS) Doppler validation study assessed the performance of individual Doppler machines across a spectrum of laboratories. We attempted to establish a threshold specific to individual machines to predict angiographically defined hemodynamic stenosis. The reliability of these Doppler ultrasound criteria was prospectively and independently evaluated among patients screened with ultrasound in the ACAS trial.
Methods Regression techniques were used to establish the relationship between Doppler velocity and percent stenosis by angiography for 63 specific Doppler machines. This relationship was used to establish a Doppler threshold to provide a 90% positive predictive value (PPV) of a 60% stenosis by angiography. The sensitivity of each Doppler machine to detect a 60% stenosis (at the 90% PPV threshold) was estimated. The efficacy of these Doppler thresholds was then prospectively evaluated by calculating the PPV among ACAS participants eligible by ultrasound.
Results Of the 63 machines, 13 (21%) had an excellent sensitivity (80%+) at 90% PPV. In 32 devices (51%) only a marginal sensitivity (50% to 80%) could be achieved. In 9 devices (14%) the sensitivity was poor (0% to 50%), and in 9 (14%) no threshold could be established. Despite the heterogeneity of Doppler performance, the standardization program worked as designed in the ACAS trial. Of 825 surgical patients, 399 were eligible by Doppler and 395 subsequently underwent angiography. Of these, 32 (8.1%; 95% confidence interval, 5.4% to 10.8%) did not have hemodynamically significant stenosis by arteriography, a proportion nonsignificantly lower than the planned 10% by the PPV.
Conclusions The performance of Doppler ultrasound was highly variable. This suggests that Doppler performance is likely overstated in the literature, but specific devices may perform satisfactorily to detect individuals with hemodynamically significant stenosis. Because performance differs substantially among devices, local investigators are strongly urged to maintain local standardization series. With such standardization, ultrasound performance is sufficient for admission to clinical trials and as the basis for carotid surgery. However, without quality control many ultrasound machines are not adequate to accurately predict the degree of carotid stenosis and should not be the only test to decide whether surgery is warranted.
Key Words: angiography • carotid stenosis • clinical trials • ultrasonics
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  E. R. Bates, C. J. D. Babb, D. E. Casey, C. U. Cates, G. R. Duckwiler, T. E. Feldman, W. A. Gray, K. Ouriel, E. D. Peterson, K. Rosenfield, et al. ACCF/SCAI/SVMB/SIR/ASITN 2007 Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Carotid Stenting: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents (ACCF/SCAI/SVMB/SIR/ASITN Clinical Expert Consensus Document Committee on Carotid Stenting) Vascular Medicine, February 1, 2007; 12(1): 35 - 83. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 American Society of Interventional & Therapeutic N, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interve, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, E. R. Bates, J. D. Babb, D. E. Casey Jr, C. U. Cates, G. R. Duckwiler, T. E. Feldman, et al. ACCF/SCAI/SVMB/SIR/ASITN 2007 Clinical Expert Consensus Document on Carotid Stenting: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Clinical Expert Consensus Documents (ACCF/SCAI/SVMB/SIR/ASITN Clinical Expert Consensus Document Committee on Carotid Stenting) J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 2, 2007; 49(1): 126 - 170. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Berg, Z. Zhang, A. Ikonen, P. Sipola, R. Kalviainen, H. Manninen, and R. Vanninen Multi-Detector Row CT Angiography in the Assessment of Carotid Artery Disease in Symptomatic Patients: Comparison with Rotational Angiography and Digital Subtraction Angiography AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., May 1, 2005; 26(5): 1022 - 1034. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Kamouchi, K. Kishikawa, Y. Okada, T. Inoue, S. Ibayashi, and M. Iida Reappraisal of Flow Velocity Ratio in Common Carotid Artery to Predict Hemodynamic Change in Carotid Stenosis AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., April 1, 2005; 26(4): 957 - 962. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Kennedy, H. Quan, W. A. Ghali, and T. E. Feasby Importance of the imaging modality in decision making about carotid endarterectomy Neurology, March 23, 2004; 62(6): 901 - 904. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. G. Grant, C. B. Benson, G. L. Moneta, A. V. Alexandrov, J. D. Baker, E. I. Bluth, B. A. Carroll, M. Eliasziw, J. Gocke, B. S. Hertzberg, et al. Carotid Artery Stenosis: Gray-Scale and Doppler US Diagnosis--Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference Radiology, November 1, 2003; 229(2): 340 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Young, P. Humphrey, D. C. C. Johnston, and L. B. Goldstein Clinical carotid endarterectomy decision-making: Noninvasive vascular imaging versus angiography Neurology, December 26, 2001; 57(12): 2324 - 2324. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. S. Lee, B. S. Hertzberg, M. J. Workman, T. P. Smith, M. A. Kliewer, D. M. DeLong, and B. A. Carroll Variability of Doppler US Measurements along the Common Carotid Artery: Effects on Estimates of Internal Carotid Arterial Stenosis in Patients with Angiographically Proved Disease Radiology, February 1, 2000; 214(2): 387 - 392. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. S. Lee, B. S. Hertzberg, M. A. Kliewer, and B. A. Carroll Assessment of Stenosis: Implications of Variability of Doppler Measurements in Normal-appearing Carotid Arteries Radiology, August 1, 1999; 212(2): 493 - 498. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. P. Adams Jr., B. H. Bendixen, E. Leira, K. C. Chang, P. H. Davis, R. F. Woolson, W. R. Clarke, and M. D. Hansen Antithrombotic treatment of ischemic stroke among patients with occlusion or severe stenosis of the internal carotid artery: A report of the Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment (TOAST) Neurology, July 1, 1999; 53(1): 122 - 122. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. B. Gorelick, R. L. Sacco, D. B. Smith, M. Alberts, L. Mustone-Alexander, D. Rader, J. L. Ross, E. Raps, M. N. Ozer, L. M. Brass, et al. Prevention of a First Stroke: A Review of Guidelines and a Multidisciplinary Consensus Statement From the National Stroke Association JAMA, March 24, 1999; 281(12): 1112 - 1120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. S. Kang and W. H. Baker Current Technique for Carotid Endarterectomy Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, January 1, 1999; 10(2): 79 - 88. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. E. H. Elgersma, M. van Leersum, P. C. Buijs, M. S. van Leeuwen, Y. T. van de Schouw, B. C. Eikelboom, and Y. van der Graaf Changes Over Time in Optimal Duplex Threshold for the Identification of Patients Eligible for Carotid Endarterectomy Stroke, November 1, 1998; 29(11): 2352 - 2356. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. S. Moore, R. F. Kempczinski, J. J. Nelson, and J. F. Toole Recurrent Carotid Stenosis : Results of the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study Stroke, October 1, 1998; 29(10): 2018 - 2025. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. V. Alexandrov, D. Vital, D. S. Brodie, P. Hamilton, and J. C. Grotta Grading Carotid Stenosis With Ultrasound : An Interlaboratory Comparison Stroke, June 1, 1997; 28(6): 1208 - 1210. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|