This Article Full Text Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Young, G.R. Articles by Smith, E.T.S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Young, G.R. Articles by Smith, E.T.S.

(Stroke. 1996;27:467-473.)
© 1996 American Heart Association, Inc.

Articles

Variability in Measurement of Extracranial Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis as Displayed by Both Digital Subtraction and Magnetic Resonance Angiography

An Assessment of Three Caliper Techniques and Visual Impression of Stenosis

G.R. Young, MRCP; P.R.D. Humphrey, DM; T.E. Nixon, FRCR E.T.S. Smith, FRCR

From the Walton Center for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Liverpool, UK.

Correspondence to G.R. Young, Walton Center for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Rice Lane, Liverpool, UK L9 1AE.

Background and Purpose The degree of stenosis in the extracranial internal carotid artery helps predict the risk of an individual suffering subsequent cerebrovascular ischemic events. Different techniques have evolved to measure stenosis from angiograms, leading to some confusion and a call for the adoption of a single technique. To help choose the most reliable technique, this study assessed observer variability in reporting carotid stenosis for four different techniques, from both digital subtraction (DSA) and MR angiograms (MRA). Three of the techniques used caliper measurements; the fourth was the visual impression of stenosis.

Methods From a total of 137 angiograms, caliper measurements were possible on 105 DSAs and 74 MRAs. Measurements from these angiograms were made by two independent observers on two separate occasions to assess interobserver and intraobserver variation in reporting.

Results For DSA, the variability in reporting and the number of clinically significant differences arising as a result were similar for each of the four techniques. While the typical measurement errors for each of the techniques studied were on the order of ±5%, each technique produced some sizable individual differences for the same angiogram, with resultant wide 95% limits of agreement. Observer variability for reporting MRA was generally a little greater than for DSA. Compared with the caliper techniques, the visual impression of stenosis technique performed well, particularly for MRA.

Conclusions Although observer variability in reporting can be considerable, no important differences were found among the different techniques widely used for measuring carotid stenosis.

Key Words: angiography • carotid arteries • diagnosis

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S Khan, G C Cloud, S Kerry, and H S Markus Imaging of vertebral artery stenosis: a systematic review J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, November 1, 2007; 78(11): 1218 - 1225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. Saam, T. S. Hatsukami, N. Takaya, B. Chu, H. Underhill, W. S. Kerwin, J. Cai, M. S. Ferguson, and C. Yuan The Vulnerable, or High-Risk, Atherosclerotic Plaque: Noninvasive MR Imaging for Characterization and Assessment Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 64 - 77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. U-King-Im, M. J. Graves, J. J. Cross, N. J. Higgins, J. Wat, R. A. Trivedi, T. Tang, S. P. S. Howarth, P. J. Kirkpatrick, N. M. Antoun, et al. Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis: Accuracy of Subjective Visual Impression for Evaluation with Digital Subtraction Angiography and Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 213 - 222. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S. Bartlett, T. D. Walters, S. P. Symons, and A. J. Fox Carotid Stenosis Index Revisited With Direct CT Angiography Measurement of Carotid Arteries to Quantify Carotid Stenosis Stroke, February 1, 2007; 38(2): 286 - 291. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E.S. Bartlett, S.P. Symons, and A.J. Fox Correlation of Carotid Stenosis Diameter and Cross-Sectional Areas with CT Angiography AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., March 1, 2006; 27(3): 638 - 642. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E.S. Bartlett, T.D. Walters, S.P. Symons, and A.J. Fox Quantification of Carotid Stenosis on CT Angiography AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., January 1, 2006; 27(1): 13 - 19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Heiserman Measurement Error of Percent Diameter Carotid Stenosis Determined by Conventional Angiography: Implications for Noninvasive Evaluation AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., September 1, 2005; 26(8): 2102 - 2107. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. K.S. U-King-Im, R. A. Trivedi, J. J. Cross, N. J.P. Higgins, W. Hollingworth, M. Graves, I. Joubert, P. J. Kirkpatrick, N. M. Antoun, and J. H. Gillard Measuring Carotid Stenosis on Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography: Diagnostic Performance and Reproducibility of 3 Different Methods Stroke, September 1, 2004; 35(9): 2083 - 2088. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Sabeti, M. Schillinger, W. Mlekusch, A. Willfort, M. Haumer, T. Nachtmann, M. Mullner, W. Lang, R. Ahmadi, and E. Minar Quantification of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis with Duplex US: Comparative Analysis of Different Flow Velocity Criteria Radiology, August 1, 2004; 232(2): 431 - 439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. U-King-Im, R. A. Trivedi, M. J. Graves, N. J. Higgins, J. J. Cross, B. D. Tom, W. Hollingworth, H. Eales, E. A. Warburton, P. J. Kirkpatrick, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography for carotid disease: Diagnostic and potential clinical impact Neurology, April 27, 2004; 62(8): 1282 - 1290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. M Hathout, M. J. Duh, and S. M. El-Saden Accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography in Predicting Angiographic Stenosis of the Internal Carotid Artery: Linear Regression Analysis AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., October 1, 2003; 24(9): 1747 - 1756. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Hernandez-Hoyos, M. Orkisz, P. Puech, C. Mansard-Desbleds, P. Douek, and I. E. Magnin Computer-assisted Analysis of Three-dimensional MR Angiograms RadioGraphics, March 1, 2002; 22(2): 421 - 436. [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]

				U. G.R. Schulz and P. M. Rothwell Major Variation in Carotid Bifurcation Anatomy: A Possible Risk Factor for Plaque Development? Stroke, November 1, 2001; 32(11): 2522 - 2529. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. M. Rothwell, S. T. Pendlebury, J. Wardlaw, and C. P. Warlow Critical Appraisal of the Design and Reporting of Studies of Imaging and Measurement of Carotid Stenosis Stroke, June 1, 2000; 31(6): 1444 - 1450. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. W. J. Dippel, F. van Kooten, S. L. M. Bakker, and P. J. Koudstaal Interobserver Agreement for 10% Categories of Angiographic Carotid Stenosis Stroke, December 1, 1997; 28(12): 2483 - 2485. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				W. Steinke, S. Ries, N. Artemis, A. Schwartz, and M. Hennerici Power Doppler Imaging of Carotid Artery Stenosis : Comparison With Color Doppler Flow Imaging and Angiography Stroke, October 1, 1997; 28(10): 1981 - 1987. [Abstract] [Full Text]