Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Stroke. 2009;40:3499-3503
Published online before print September 17, 2009, doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.556035
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
40/11/3499    most recent
STROKEAHA.109.556035v1
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Khan, S.
Right arrow Articles by Markus, H. S.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Khan, S.
Right arrow Articles by Markus, H. S.
Related Collections
Right arrow Angiography
Right arrow Computerized tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

(Stroke. 2009;40:3499.)
© 2009 American Heart Association, Inc.


Original Contributions

Noninvasive Detection of Vertebral Artery Stenosis

A Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced MR Angiography, CT Angiography, and Ultrasound

Sofia Khan, MRCP; Philip Rich, FRCR; Andrew Clifton, FRCR Hugh S. Markus, FRCP

From Clinical Neuroscience (S.K., H.S.M.), St George’s University of London, UK; and Neuroradiology (P.R., A.C.), Atkinson Morley Neuroscience Centre, St George’s NHS Healthcare Trust, London, UK.

Correspondence to Hugh S. Markus, FRCP, Clinical Neuroscience, St George’s University of London, Cranmer Terrace, London, SW17 0RE, UK. E-mail hmarkus{at}sgul.ac.uk

Background and Purpose— Vertebral stenosis is associated with a high risk of recurrent stroke, but noninvasive imaging techniques to identify it have lacked sensitivity. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography and CT angiography have been recently developed and appear to have better sensitivity. However, no prospective studies have compared both of these techniques with ultrasound against the gold standard of intra-arterial angiography in the same group of patients.

Methods— Forty-six patients were prospectively recruited in whom intra-arterial angiography was being performed. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography, CT angiography, and duplex ultrasound were also performed. Angiographic images were analyzed blinded to patient identity by 2 experienced neuroradiologists.

Results— Contrast-enhanced MR angiography had the highest sensitivity and specificity (Radiologist 1, 0.83 and 0.91, respectively; Radiologist 2, 0.89 and 0.87) for detecting ≥50% stenosis. CT angiography had good sensitivity (Radiologist 1, 0.68; Radiologist 2, 0.58) and excellent specificity (Radiologist 1, 0.92; Radiologist 2, 0.93), whereas duplex had low sensitivity (0.44) but excellent specificity (0.95). For vertebral origin stenosis ≥50%, sensitivities were similar for contrast-enhanced MR angiography (Radiologist 1, 0.91; Radiologist 2, 0.82) but relatively higher for CT angiography (Radiologist 1, 0.82; Radiologist 2, 0.82) and duplex (0.67).

Conclusions— Contrast-enhanced MR angiography is the most sensitive noninvasive technique to detect vertebral artery stenosis and also has high specificity. CT angiography has good sensitivity and high specificity. In contrast, ultrasound has low sensitivity and will miss many vertebral stenoses.


Key Words: CT • diagnostic methods • MR angiography • vertebrobasilar