Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
« Previous Article | Table of Contents | Next Article »
Stroke. 2004;35:2083-2088
Published online before print July 8, 2004, doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000136722.30008.b1
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
35/9/2083    most recent
01.STR.0000136722.30008.b1v1
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 U-King-Im, J. M. K.S.
Right arrow Articles by Gillard, J. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by U-King-Im, J. M. K.S.
Right arrow Articles by Gillard, J. H.
Related Collections
Right arrow CT and MRI
Right arrow Carotid Stenosis
Right arrow Angiography
Right arrow Computerized tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

(Stroke. 2004;35:2083.)
© 2004 American Heart Association, Inc.

Original Contributions

Measuring Carotid Stenosis on Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography

Diagnostic Performance and Reproducibility of 3 Different Methods

Jean Marie K.S. U-King-Im, MRCS; Rikin A. Trivedi, MRCP, MRCS; Justin J. Cross, MRCP, FRCR; Nicholas J.P. Higgins, MRCP, FRCR; William Hollingworth, PhD; Martin Graves, MSc; Ilse Joubert; Peter J. Kirkpatrick, MSc, FRCS; Nagui M. Antoun, FRCP, FRCR Jonathan H. Gillard, BSc, MD, FRCR

From the University Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Correspondence to Dr. Jonathan H Gillard, University Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge, CB2 2QQ UK. E-mail jhg21{at}cam.ac.uk

Background and Purpose— The aim of this study was to compare diagnostic performance and reproducibility of 3 different methods of quantifying stenosis on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CEMRA), with intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the reference standard.

Methods— 167 symptomatic patients scheduled for DSA, after screening Doppler ultrasound, were prospectively recruited to undergo CEMRA. Severity of stenosis was measured according to the North American Symptomatic Trial Collaborators (NASCET), European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST), and the common carotid (CC) methods. Measurements for each method were made for 284 vessels (142 included patients) on both CEMRA and DSA in a blinded and randomized manner by 3 independent attending neuroradiologists.

Results— Significant differences in prevalence of severe stenosis were seen with the 3 methods on both DSA and CEMRA, with ECST yielding the least and NASCET the most cases of severe stenosis. Overall, all 3 methods performed similarly well in terms of intermodality correlation and agreement. No significant differences in interobserver agreement were found on either modality. With CEMRA, however, we found a significantly lower sensitivity for detection of severe stenosis with ECST (79.8%) compared with NASCET (93.0%), with DSA as reference standard.

Conclusions— Uniformity of carotid stenosis measurement methods is desirable because patient management may otherwise differ substantially. All 3 methods are adequate for use with DSA. With CEMRA, however, this study supports use of the NASCET method because of improved sensitivity for detecting severe stenosis.


Key Words: angiography • carotid stenosis • magnetic resonance imaging




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br. J. Radiol.Home page
S Goode, N Altaf, R A Dineen, S Krishnan, and D Auer
Intraplaque haemorrhage mimicking carotid pseudoaneurysm on magnetic resonance angiography
Br. J. Radiol., November 1, 2007; 80(959): e271 - e274.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Vasc MedHome page
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]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
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]

Home page
 Am. J. Neuroradiol.Home page
A.S. Turk, K.M. Johnson, D. Lum, D. Niemann, B. Aagaard-Kienitz, D. Consigny, J. Grinde, P. Turski, V. Haughton, and C. Mistretta
Physiologic and Anatomic Assessment of a Canine Carotid Artery Stenosis Model Utilizing Phase Contrast with Vastly Undersampled Isotropic Projection Imaging
AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., January 1, 2007; 28(1): 111 - 115.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Stroke Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search
Copyright © 2004 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited.