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 Alexandrov, A. V. Articles by Grotta, J. C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Alexandrov, A. V. Articles by Grotta, J. C.

(Stroke. 1997;28:1208-1210.)
© 1997 American Heart Association, Inc.

Articles

Grading Carotid Stenosis With Ultrasound

An Interlaboratory Comparison

Andrei V. Alexandrov, MD; Doralene Vital, RN, RVT; Dianne S. Brodie, RVT; Paul Hamilton, MD; James C. Grotta, MD

From the Center for Noninvasive Brain Perfusion Studies, Stroke Program, University of Texas at Houston (A.V.A., D.V., J.C.G.); and the Neurovascular Doppler Laboratory (A.V.A, D.S.B., P.H.) and Department of Radiology (P.H.), Sunnybrook Health Science Center, University of Toronto, Canada.

Correspondence to Dr Andrei V. Alexandrov, Center for Noninvasive Brain Perfusion Studies, Stroke Program, University of Texas–Houston Medical School, 6431 Fannin St, MSB 7.044, Houston, TX 77030. E-mail avalexandrov{at}worldnet.att.net

Background and Purpose Carotid ultrasound had modest accuracy in the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) of carotid endarterectomy in predicting severe carotid stenosis when a 250-cm/s peak systolic velocity (PSV) criterion was applied to different laboratories. We compared the performance of two independent laboratories using similar equipment (ATL-HDI Ultramark 9) but different interpretation criteria.

Methods Consecutive patients who underwent both color-coded duplex ultrasound and intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography were studied. PSV was determined with angle correction at the site of the tightest arterial narrowing. Carotid stenosis was measured on angiograms using the North American (N) method. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each laboratory.

Results In 87 patients, 174 bifurcations were imaged. A 250-cm/s criterion was the best single predictor of a >70% N stenosis at one laboratory (sensitivity 93% [95% confidence interval, 85 to 101], specificity 86% [76 to 96], PPV 75% [62 to 87], and NPV 96% [90 to 102]) but had modest parameters at the other laboratory (50% [34 to 64], 87%, [77 to 97], 60 [44 to 76], and 91 [82 to 100], respectively). However, the diagnostic criteria routinely used in the second laboratory included different velocity values, which when applied decreased specificity by 17% but increased sensitivity by 35% (85% [74 to 96], 70% [56 to 84], 90% [81 to 99], and 77% [64 to 90], respectively).

Conclusions Despite the use of similar equipment, ultrasound grading of carotid stenosis is operator dependent and relies on different and individually validated criteria. Greater sensitivity of ultrasound screening is achieved by applying diagnostic criteria specific to each laboratory. Multicenter studies should use laboratory-specific criteria and a local validation process.

Key Words: angiography • carotid stenosis • ultrasonics

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Reiter, R. A. Bucek, I. Effenberger, J. Boltuch, W. Lang, R. Ahmadi, E. Minar, and M. Schillinger Plaque Echolucency Is Not Associated With the Risk of Stroke in Carotid Stenting Stroke, September 1, 2006; 37(9): 2378 - 2380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. H. Heijenbrok-Kal, P. J. Nederkoorn, E. Buskens, Y. van der Graaf, and M.G. Myriam Hunink Diagnostic Performance of Duplex Ultrasound in Patients Suspected of Carotid Artery Disease: The Ipsilateral Versus Contralateral Artery Stroke, October 1, 2005; 36(10): 2105 - 2109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. H. Wierks and N. Labropoulos Noninvasive Carotid Imaging Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, June 1, 2004; 16(2): 89 - 99. [Abstract] [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]

				K. S. Mackenzie, E. French-Sherry, K. Burns, T. Pooley, and H. S. Bassiouny B-Mode Ultrasound Measurement of Carotid Bifurcation Stenoses: Is It Reliable? Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, March 1, 2002; 36(2): 123 - 135. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Logason, S. Karacagil, H.-G. Hardemark, A. Bostrom, A. Hellberg, and C. Ljungman Carotid Artery Endarterectomy Solely Based on Duplex Scan Findings Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, January 1, 2002; 36(1): 9 - 15. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. C.C. Johnston and L. B. Goldstein Clinical carotid endarterectomy decision making: Noninvasive vascular imaging versus angiography Neurology, April 24, 2001; 56(8): 1009 - 1015. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. Serfaty, P. Chirossel, J. M. Chevallier, R. Ecochard, J. C. Froment, and P. C. Douek Accuracy of Three-Dimensional Gadolinium-Enhanced MR Angiography in the Assessment of Extracranial Carotid Artery Disease Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2000; 175(2): 455 - 463. [Abstract] [Full Text] [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]