Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Stroke. 2002;33:2834-2838
Published online before print December 2, 2002, doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000043632.51378.24
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
33/12/2834    most recent
01.STR.0000043632.51378.24v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johnston, D. C.C.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, L. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Johnston, D. C.C.
Right arrow Articles by Goldstein, L. B.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Carotid Artery Disease
Related Collections
Right arrow Carotid Stenosis
Right arrow Computerized tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

(Stroke. 2002;33:2834.)
© 2002 American Heart Association, Inc.


Original Contributions

Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography of Carotid Arteries

Utility in Routine Clinical Practice

Dean C.C. Johnston, MD, MHSc; James D. Eastwood, MD; Thanh Nguyen, MD Larry B. Goldstein, MD

From the Department of Medicine (Neurology), University of British Columbia, Center for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (D.C.C.J.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center (J.D.E., T.N.), and Department of Medicine (Neurology), Duke Center for Cerebrovascular Disease, Center for Clinical Health Policy Research (L.B.G.), Durham, NC; and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC (L.B.G.).

Reprint requests to Dean C.C. Johnston, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, Center for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul’s Hospital, Room 2369, Providence Wing, 1081 Burrard St, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6Z 1Y6. E-mail dccj{at}interchange.ubc.ca

Background and Purpose— Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CEMRA) is among the newer noninvasive tests used for the evaluation of patients with carotid artery disease. Evidence supporting its utility in routine clinical practice is lacking.

Methods— The results of CEMRA were compared with those of catheter angiography in 50 consecutive patients being evaluated for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) at a community hospital. Using indications for CEA based on published guidelines, we determined the rate of misclassification for surgery, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. In addition, the interrater agreement ({kappa} score) of CEMRA was compared with that of catheter angiography in the studied population and with interpretations provided by 2 blinded radiologists.

Results— Compared with catheter angiography, 24% (95% CI, 12% to 36%) of patients would have been misclassified for CEA on the basis of CEMRA results alone. CEMRA was associated with sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 62%, positive predictive value of 78%, and negative predictive value of 89%. When both CEMRA and duplex Doppler ultrasound were performed and the results were concordant, the misclassification rate decreased to 17% (95% CI, 2% to 32%). {kappa} scores were similar for CEMRA and catheter angiography (0.72 and 0.75, respectively).

Conclusions— CEMRA was found to be highly sensitive for detection of surgically amenable carotid stenosis. {kappa} scores for the interpretation of CEMRA and catheter angiography were similar. However, clinicians should be cautious when using CEMRA alone for surgical decision making in CEA candidates because a significant number of patients may be misclassified. The rate of misclassification is reduced when the results of CEMRA and duplex Doppler ultrasound are concordant.


Key Words: carotid stenosis • diagnosis • evaluation studies • magnetic resonance angiography




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J Ultrasound MedHome page
D. Gaitini and M. Soudack
Diagnosing Carotid Stenosis by Doppler Sonography: State of the Art
J. Ultrasound Med., August 1, 2005; 24(8): 1127 - 1136.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
N. Anzalone, F. Scomazzoni, R. Castellano, L. Strada, C. Righi, L. S. Politi, M. A. Kirchin, R. Chiesa, and G. Scotti
Carotid Artery Stenosis: Intraindividual Correlations of 3D Time-of-Flight MR Angiography, Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography, Conventional DSA, and Rotational Angiography for Detection and Grading
Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 204 - 213.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
StrokeHome page
M. J. Alberts, R. E. Latchaw, W. R. Selman, T. Shephard, M. N. Hadley, L. M. Brass, W. Koroshetz, J. R. Marler, J. Booss, R. D. Zorowitz, et al.
Recommendations for Comprehensive Stroke Centers: A Consensus Statement From the Brain Attack Coalition
Stroke, July 1, 2005; 36(7): 1597 - 1616.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Neuroradiol.Home page
C. Warmuth, M. Ruping, A. Forschler, H.-C. Koennecke, J. M. Valdueza, A. Kauert, S. J. Schreiber, R. Siekmann, and C. Zimmer
Dynamic Spin Labeling Angiography in Extracranial Carotid Artery Stenosis
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., May 1, 2005; 26(5): 1035 - 1043.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
StrokeHome page
D. E. Hyde, A. J. Fox, I. Gulka, P. Kalapos, D. H. Lee, D. M. Pelz, and D. W. Holdsworth
Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis Measurement: Comparison of 3D Computed Rotational Angiography and Conventional Digital Subtraction Angiography
Stroke, December 1, 2004; 35(12): 2776 - 2781.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
PERSPECT VASC SURG ENDOVASC THERHome page
K. C. Wang, D. Saloner, and J. H. Rapp
Characteristics of Carotid Plaque as Risk Factors for Stroke
Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, September 1, 2004; 16(3): 193 - 199.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
J. K. DeMarco, J. Huston III, and M. A. Bernstein
Evaluation of Classic 2D Time-of-Flight MR Angiography in the Depiction of Severe Carotid Stenosis
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2004; 183(3): 787 - 793.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
NeurologyHome page
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]


Home page
StrokeHome page
J. W. Norris and A. Halliday
Is Ultrasound Sufficient for Vascular Imaging Prior to Carotid Endarterectomy?
Stroke, February 1, 2004; 35(2): 370 - 371.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
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]


Home page
StrokeHome page
P. M. Rothwell
For Severe Carotid Stenosis Found on Ultrasound, Further Arterial Evaluation Prior to Carotid Endarterectomy Is Unnecessary: The Argument Against
Stroke, July 1, 2003; 34(7): 1817 - 1819.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
StrokeHome page
J. U-King-Im, R. Trivedi, J. H. Gillard, D. C.C. Johnston, J. D. Eastwood, and L. B. Goldstein
Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography Carotid Arteries * Response
Stroke, May 1, 2003; 34 (5): e15 - e15.
[Full Text] [PDF]