This Article Abstract 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 Bladin, C.F. Articles by Norris, J.W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bladin, C.F. Articles by Norris, J.W.

(Stroke. 1995;26:230-234.)
© 1995 American Heart Association, Inc.

Articles

Carotid Stenosis Index

A New Method of Measuring Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis

Presented in part at the American Heart Association 19th International Conference on Stroke and the Cerebral Circulation, San Diego, Calif, February 17-19, 1994.

C.F. Bladin, MBBS, FRACP; A.V. Alexandrov, MD; J. Murphy, MD, FRCR; R. Maggisano, MD, FRCS(C), FACS J.W. Norris, MD

From the Stroke Research Unit (C.F.B., A.V.A., J.W.N.), and the Departments of Radiology (J.M.) and Vascular Surgery (R.M.), Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, University of Toronto, Canada.

Correspondence to C.F. Bladin, MD, Stroke Research Unit, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, Canada M4N 3M5.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Background and Purpose Current methods of measuring carotid stenosis such as those used in the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) and European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) have limitations caused by difficulties in measuring the normal width of the distal internal carotid artery (ICA) or the carotid bulb.

Methods We developed a new technique, the Carotid Stenosis Index (CSI), based on the known anatomic relationship between the common carotid artery (CCA) and ICA (1.2xCCA diameter=proximal ICA diameter). The normal ICA diameter can therefore be calculated from direct measurement of the CCA. Three blinded observers evaluated the angiograms of 57 patients (114 carotid arteries), previously screened with duplex ultrasonography, using the NASCET, ECST, and CSI methods. In a subset of 30 patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy, comparison was also made to computerized carotid plaque planimetry.

Results The NASCET method could only be applied correctly in 89% and the ECST method in 95% of cases because of overlying vessels or inadequate views of the distal ICA or carotid bulb. An additional 9% of NASCET cases had a "negative" stenosis, in which the stenosis is wider than the distal ICA. The CSI method was applicable in 99% of cases. Interobserver comparison using ANOVA revealed significant differences using NASCET (P<.0001) and ECST (P<.001) but not CSI (P=NS). NASCET had a sevenfold variation (P<.01) and ECST a twofold variation (P<.01) in results compared with CSI . The intraobserver reliability was 0.87 for NASCET, 0.86 for ECST, and 0.90 for CSI. However, the 95% confidence intervals for an individual measurement by an observer were ±30% for NASCET, ±19% for ECST, and ±15% for CSI. With linear methods of measurement there were significant differences between NASCET and CSI (P<.0001) and ECST (P<.0001) but not between CSI and ECST. A comparison of area derivations of these methods to carotid plaque planimetry revealed significant differences from NASCET (P<.0001) but not ECST, CSI, or duplex methods. A CSI nomogram was created, allowing measurement of both linear and area percent stenosis.

Conclusions CSI is the most reliable validated method of measuring carotid stenosis, and it correlates with duplex and carotid pathology.

Key Words: carotid stenosis • ultrasonics, duplex • angiography

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Recent randomized trials of carotid endarterectomy have focused interest on the accuracy of measuring carotid stenosis by angiography^{1 2 3} and the validity of carotid ultrasound as a screening test.^{4 5 6} There are significant discrepancies between the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) and the European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) angiographic methods, such that a 50% stenosis by NASCET is equivalent to approximately 70% by ECST.^{6 7} This may produce a management dilemma for the clinician considering carotid surgery for an individual symptomatic patient because, in the absence of data for the moderate stenosis group, 70% is the present limit for surgical treatment.

Both the NASCET and ECST angiographic methods have limitations.^{6 7 8} With the NASCET method, one problem is deciding the appropriate segment of distal internal carotid artery (ICA) on which to base a measurement. Inadequate contrast enhancement or the presence of overlying vessels may obscure the distal ICA. Furthermore, since the carotid bulb is larger than the distal ICA, minor degrees of stenosis (<50% bulb diameter reduction) may result in a "negative stenosis."⁶ For ECST measurements, the problem lies in predicting the normal position of the carotid bulb; variations in anatomy or irregular stenoses can make this difficult even for the experienced observer.

The principal difficulty, therefore, with both methods is establishing the diameter of the normal ICA. An alternative approach is to use the well-established physiological and anatomic relationship between the common carotid artery (CCA) and proximal ICA, so that the normal ICA diameter can be derived from measurement of the CCA. For example, duplex ultrasound studies have consistently shown normal ICA/CCA peak blood flow velocity ratios of 0.7,^{9 10} and studies of normal angiograms¹¹ have shown the ICA/CCA diameter ratio is 1:1.19 (±0.09).

The aim of this study was to develop a technique based on this principle, termed the Carotid Stenosis Index (CSI), and compare this with current methods (NASCET, ECST, duplex ultrasound) and with the "gold standard," carotid plaque pathology.

	Subjects and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References

 
We prospectively compared the angiographic findings of consecutive patients undergoing carotid angiography. All patients had transient ischemic attack or minor stroke. Before angiography all patients had color-coded carotid duplex ultrasound (Diasonics Inc). Angiography was performed by experienced radiologists using the intra-arterial digital subtraction technique through the femoral route with selective catheterization of the extracranial arteries. Biplanar images were obtained of each carotid bifurcation.

Three blinded observers made measurements from the printed x-ray film at the following sites (Fig 1): ICA stenosis (at the narrowest point), distal ICA (as recommended by NASCET¹ ), predicted outline of the ICA bulb (as recommended by ECST² ), and proximal CCA (3 to 5 cm proximal to the carotid bifurcation). Percent stenosis was then calculated using the formula (1-D/N)x100%, where D is the diameter of the stenosis lumen and N is the normal ICA diameter. This formula was applied according to the methods of NASCET and ECST.

View larger version (69K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. Angiogram shows anatomic sites of measurement in the carotid artery for calculating percent stenosis for the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET), European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST), and Carotid Stenosis Index (CSI) methods. D indicates diameter of internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis; N, normal ICA diameter used in each method. Note that for CSI the common carotid artery value of N is multiplied by 1.2 to give the predicted outline of the proximal ICA.

To use the CSI, the proximal CCA diameter is first multiplied by 1.2 (approximated from 1.19, following published data¹¹ ) so as to derive the expected width of the normal proximal ICA. Percent stenosis is then calculated as in the other methods by comparing this with the diameter of the ICA stenosis (D) using the formula (1-D/N)x100%, with N=1.2xCCA diameter.

Each observer made note of any methodological difficulties they encountered in trying to use each of these angiographic methods. To assess intraobserver reliability, two of the observers remeasured 58 vessels 5 months after the initial measurements were made.

A subgroup of patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy had the carotid plaque removed intact, which was sent for processing and sectioning in the pathology laboratory as previously described.⁶ Using a computerized technique, "Sigma scan" (Jandel Scientific), the cross-sectional area (mm²) or planimetry of the stenosed lumen and the proximal ICA were measured. Comparison was then made between plaque pathology and the area derivations of CSI, NASCET, ECST, and duplex methods.⁶

Alterations in plaque morphology with processing produced uniform shrinkage of the specimen by 8±9.5%, consistent with previous studies,¹² such that the degree of stenosis was not affected.

Statistics were performed using a two-tailed t test for continuous variables and ANOVA for comparison between observers using each method, using the SAS statistical software.¹³ Comparison of the variation of each method was made using the F_max statistic.¹⁴ Interobserver and intraobserver reliability was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient.¹⁵

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References

 
A total of 57 patients (114 carotid arteries) were evaluated. Five percent (6/114) of vessels were occluded. Carotid plaque planimetry was available for comparison for 30 patients having carotid endarterectomy.

Using ANOVA, there were significant observer effects for NASCET (F_2,112=14, P<.0001) and ECST (F_2,112=6.85, P<.001) but not CSI (F_2,112=2.53, P=NS). For NASCET the mean±SD of each observer was R1=31±40%, R2=36±40%, R3=41±35%; for ECST, R1=61±25%, R2=63±26%, R3=65±24%; and for CSI, R1=64±24%, R2=66±23%, R3=66±24%.

Another test of the variability of each method can be assessed by comparing the mean square errors (MSE), using the F_max statistic.¹⁴ Compared with CSI (MSE, 378.7), there is a sevenfold variation in NASCET (MSE, 2787.3; F_max P<.01) and a twofold variation in ECST (MSE, 915.6; F_max P<.01).

Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver reliability revealed intraclass correlation coefficients for each method: NASCET, 0.81 and 0.87; ECST, 0.86 and 0.86; and CSI, 0.88 and 0.90. However, the range of possible error by an observer for an individual measurement (the 95% confidence intervals derived from the standard error of the mean) was greatest for NASCET and least for CSI (NASCET ±30%, ECST ±19%, CSI ±15%).

For linear methods of measurement, there was no significant difference between the mean percent stenosis of CSI and ECST. There was, however, a significant difference between NASCET and ECST (36±24% versus 62±16%, P<.0001) and NASCET and CSI (36±24% versus 65±16%, P<.0001).

Comparison was then made of the area derivations of each of the three methods, duplex ultrasonography, and carotid plaque planimetry (Table). This revealed no significant difference between carotid pathology results and CSI area, duplex area, and ECST area, but significant differences were seen between carotid pathology and NASCET area (P<.0001).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Table 1. Comparison Between Area Percent Stenosis Derivations (±SD) of NASCET, ECST, CSI, and Carotid Plaque Planimetry in Subgroup of 30 Patients With Carotid Endarterectomy

Technical factors limited the clinical usefulness of each method in consecutive angiograms. NASCET could be correctly used in only 89% and ECST in 95% of vessels because of the presence of overlapping vessels, poststenotic collapse or dilation, or inadequate views of the distal ICA or carotid bulb outline. Use of the NASCET method also resulted in an additional 9% of stenoses being recorded as "negative" stenosis, ie, the stenosis diameter is greater than the distal ICA diameter. The CSI method was applicable in 99% of cases, the only limitation being one CCA with extensive atheroma.

From these results a comparison was then made to ascertain the interrelationship between CSI and NASCET. Fig 2 shows that a CSI stenosis of 42% is equivalent to 0% by NASCET; anything less than 42% becomes by definition a "negative" NASCET stenosis. The slope of the line in Fig 2 shows that the relationship between NASCET and CSI data is described by the equation CSI=42%+0.6 NASCET.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Plot shows correlation between angiographic measurement of carotid stenosis using the distal (North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial; NASCET) and proximal (Carotid Stenosis Index; CSI) internal carotid artery.

To facilitate use of the CSI, a nomogram was devised (Fig 3), allowing accurate measurement of percent stenosis by either linear or area methods. The nomogram consists of two parallel lines, one representing the CCA diameter, the other the ICA stenosis diameter, connected by a central diagonal on which linear and area percent stenosis markings are displayed. No calculations are required for its use, only the CCA diameter measurement at a site free of atheroma approximately 3 to 5 cm proximal to the carotid bifurcation and the ICA stenosis diameter. A line drawn across the nomogram then reads percent stenosis from the central markings.

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Example of Carotid Stenosis Index nomogram: a 6-mm common carotid artery (CCA) and 2.5-mm internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis give a 65% linear (87% area) stenosis.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The results of this study demonstrate that CSI provides a consistent and accurate angiographic measure of carotid stenosis that compares well with both duplex ultrasound and carotid plaque pathology. Of the current methods, NASCET had the most interobserver and intraobserver differences in results (and widest confidence intervals), reflecting the spectrum of individual interpretation possible in its use. The clinical significance of these differences can be judged from the means of each observer. The maximum difference in percent stenosis measurements was 10% for NASCET, 4% for ECST, and 2% for CSI.

There have been few published studies on the reliability of angiographic methods of measurement and none comparing different methods. Chikos et al¹⁶ examined 64 selected angiograms comparing the stenosis with the carotid bulb (ECST method). They found an overall intraobserver correlation coefficient of 0.98 with a mean difference in readings of 6±8%, although the validity of the statistical methods used is unclear. Murie and McKay¹⁷ compared 100 angiograms with the NASCET method using six categorical ratings. They found interobserver and intraobserver agreements of 74% and 83%, respectively (kappa analyses were not performed), with agreement improving with fewer categories used.

The results show variable applicability of NASCET and ECST to consecutive angiograms. For instance, 11% and 5% of vessels could not be technically evaluated using the NASCET and ECST methods, respectively, despite the use of biplanar angiography in all cases. All vessels could be assessed by CSI, since the CCA was always well visualized, and there were no instances of a "negative" stenosis (ie, a stenosis measurement <0%).

The technique of CSI depends on a measurable CCA to allow calculation of the proximal ICA diameter. The anatomic relationship between components of the CCA and the ICA has been established from angiographic studies based on normal, nonatheromatous bifurcations¹¹ as well as Doppler studies comparing velocity ratios.⁹ Williams and Nicolaides¹¹ analyzed 61 normal angiograms and found a ratio of 0.65 for distal ICA/CCA and 1.19 for proximal ICA/CCA. Others¹⁸ have compared distal CCA/proximal ICA for a ratio of 1.11; however, the distal CCA is less reliable because it is subject to more atheroma and more anatomic variation and is the only site to have a statistically significant intersex difference for the CCA/ICA ratio. Doppler velocity ratios for ICA/CCA are 0.4 to 0.7 for normal vessels^{9 10} ; in the assessment of carotid atheroma, a velocity ratio >1.5 is considered significant for stenosis >50%.¹⁰

In the development of CSI, we have adopted the ICA/CCA ratio of 1:1.2. The percent error with this numerical value is minor, and there are no significant interobserver differences and less variability compared with the other methods. The CCA is a good site for angiographic measurements because it is a straight artery with no overlying vessels and is least affected by extracranial atheromatous disease,^{11 19} although compensatory dilation is a possible confounding issue.²⁰ Its proximal location ensures good angiographic contrast definition for measurement of vessel edges. Furthermore, for noninvasive methods, the CCA is readily identifiable on duplex ultrasonography, and its size and flow characteristics minimize potential errors with magnetic resonance angiography.

There is some controversy over whether the proximal or distal ICA should be used as the denominator in measuring carotid stenosis. Using the carotid bulb has been dismissed by some authors as "anatomic purism" with no hemodynamic relevance.⁸ However, as embolism (due to ulceration) may be the most common cause of carotid stenosis stroke,²¹ hemodynamic considerations may be of less importance.

There are other reasons for using the proximal ICA as the principal site of measurement.¹¹ (1) The proximal ICA is where the atheromatous lesion commences and develops. Accurate measurement of minor grades of disease is only possible using this location as the basis for measurement. The gradation of stroke risk with increasing stenosis can then be correlated with morphology of the developing plaque.²² (2) Mild and moderate degrees of stenosis correlate with an equivalent risk of ischemic events. ECST has shown no benefit for surgery in patients with minor (0% to 29%) ICA stenosis. However, a 0% to 29% NASCET stenosis is more severe (equivalent to 42% to 60% stenosis ECST) and therefore has a greater likelihood of being symptomatic²² and responsive to surgery. There is transcranial Doppler evidence that with increasing stenosis there is more embolic activity ("high-intensity transient signals").^{23 24} Using the proximal ICA therefore gives a more realistic assessment of the amount of atheroma and embolic potential of a stenosis and thus a patient's stroke risk. (3) There is a close relationship with duplex sonography. Present duplex machines can detect minor degrees of stenosis with B-mode imaging.²⁵ There is a poor correlation of ultrasound findings with angiographic methods such as NASCET, which are based on the distal ICA.⁶ (4) Correlation is possible with carotid pathology. The extent of atheroma and degree of stenosis found on carotid pathology are best described by angiographic methods that use the proximal ICA.⁶

The development of CSI has practical implications for patient management. NASCET clearly demonstrated the highest stroke risk per decile of symptomatic stenosis >70%, and the results of this and the other carotid surgery trials have led to many more patients with symptomatic severe carotid stenosis being referred for assessment by ultrasonography and angiography.²⁶ However, an 80% stenosis measured by ECST is less than 70% by NASCET, even though pathologically it is the same stenosis. Depending on which angiographic technique is used, the patient may subsequently undergo surgery with its 2% to 3% major and 5% overall risk of mortality and morbidity.¹

It has also been suggested^{26 27} that, with the recent increase in referrals for angiographic assessment of carotid stenosis, some clinicians are now giving patients with less severe degrees of stenosis the "surgical benefit of the doubt." As shown in this study, the possible variations in selecting a distal ICA diameter (NASCET) or drawing a carotid bulb outline (ECST) make this subjective bias possible.

Until now there was no reliable way of relating the results of the two carotid endarterectomy trials. This was attempted recently by remeasuring ECST angiograms using the NASCET method,²⁸ but our data suggest that the potential for error is greater with the NASCET method. CSI and ECST are similar, with both showing no significant differences from duplex or pathology. However, the CSI is more reliable, is less prone to technical error, and can be correlated with NASCET (Fig 2), thus providing a bridge between current carotid surgery trials.

	Acknowledgments

 
Dr Bladin was a postgraduate research fellow from the University of Melbourne (Australia). Dr Alexandrov is the recipient of the American Heart Association Robert G. Siekert Young Investigator Award in Stroke (Honorable Mention) for work related to this study.

Received June 10, 1994; revision received October 25, 1994; accepted October 25, 1994.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Subjects and Methods Results Discussion References

 
1. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:445-453. [Abstract]

2. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. MRC European carotid surgery trial: interim results for symptomatic patients with severe (70-99%) stenosis or with mild (0-29%) stenosis. Lancet. 1991;337:1235-1244. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

3. The Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis Study Group. Study design for randomized prospective trial of carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic atherosclerosis. Stroke. 1989;20:844-849. [Abstract/Free Full Text]

4. Haynes RB, Taylor DW, Sackett DL, Fox A, Rankin R, Barnett HJM. Poor performance of Doppler in detecting high grade stenosis. Clin Res. 1992;40:184a.

5. Barnett HJM, Barnes RW, Robertson JT. The uncertainties surrounding carotid endarterectomy. JAMA. 1992;268:3120-3121. [Abstract/Free Full Text]

6. Alexandrov AV, Bladin CF, Maggisano R, Norris JW. Measuring carotid stenosis: time for a reappraisal. Stroke. 1993;24:1292-1296. [Abstract/Free Full Text]

7. Bousser MG. Benefits from carotid surgery? Yes, but. . . Cerebrovasc Dis. 1992;2:122-126.

8. Fox AJ. How to measure carotid stenosis. Radiology. 1993;186:316-318. [Free Full Text]

9. Blackshear WM, Phillips DJ, Chikos PM, Harley JD, Thiele BL, Strandness DE. Carotid artery velocity patterns in normal and stenotic vessels. Stroke. 1980;11:67-71. [Abstract/Free Full Text]

10. Vaisman U, Wojciechowski M. Carotid artery disease: new criteria for evaluation by sonographic duplex scanning. Radiology. 1986;158:253-255. [Abstract/Free Full Text]

11. Williams MA, Nicolaides AN. Predicting the normal dimensions of the internal and external carotid arteries from the diameter of the common carotid. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1986;1:91-96.

12. Schenk EA, Bond G, Aretz TH, Angelo JN, Choi HY, Rynalski T, Gustafson NF, Berson AS, Ricotta JJ, Goodison MW, Bryan FA, Goldberg BB, Toole JF, O'Leary DH. Multicenter study of real time ultrasonography, arteriography, and pathology: pathologic evaluation of carotid endarterectomy specimens. Stroke. 1988;19:289-296. [Abstract/Free Full Text]

13. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT User's Guide. 4th ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 1992.

14. Winer BJ, Brown DR, Michels KM. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Co; 1991.

15. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420-428. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

16. Chikos PM, Fisher LD, Hirsh JH, Harley JD, Thiele BL, Strandness DE. Observer variability in evaluating extracranial carotid artery stenosis. Stroke. 1983;14:885-892. [Abstract/Free Full Text]

17. Murie JA, McKay AJ. Radiographic assessment of the extracranial internal carotid artery. J Cardiovasc Surg. 1986;27:154-157. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

18. Bharadvaj BK, Mabon RF, Giddens DP. Steady flow in a model of the human carotid, I: flow visualization. J Biomech. 1982;15:349-362. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

19. Hass WK, Fields WS, North RR, Kircheff II, Chase NE, Bauer RB. Joint study of extracranial arterial occlusion, II: arteriography, techniques, sites, and complications. JAMA. 1968;203:961-968. [Abstract/Free Full Text]

20. Glagov S, Weisenberg E, Zarins CK, Stankunavicius R, Kolettis GJ. Compensatory enlargement of human atherosclerotic coronary arteries. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:1371-1375. [Abstract]

21. Mohr JP, Gautier JC, Pessin MS. Internal carotid artery disease. In: Barnett HJM, Mohr JP, Stein BM, Yatsu FM, eds. Stroke: Pathophysiology, Diagnosis, and Management. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Churchhill Livingstone; 1992:302-305.

22. Bornstein NM, Norris JW. The unstable carotid plaque. Stroke. 1989;20:1104-1106. [Free Full Text]

23. Markus HS, Droste DW, Brown MM. Detection of asymptomatic cerebral emboli signals with Doppler ultrasound. Lancet. 1994;343:1011-1012. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

24. Siebler M, Sitzer M, Rose G, Bendfeldt D, Steinmetz H. Silent cerebral embolism caused by neurologically symptomatic high-grade carotid stenosis. Brain. 1993;116:1005-1015. [Abstract/Free Full Text]

25. Strandness DE. Duplex Scanning in Vascular Disorders. New York, NY: Raven Press Publishers; 1990.

26. Barnett HJM, Taylor DW. Clinical trials in stroke prevention: persisting uncertainties, firm answers. Neurology. 1993;43:2163-2166. [Free Full Text]

27. Barnett HJM. Progress in understanding the role of carotid endarterectomy. Can J Neurol Sci. 1994;2:85-87.

28. Barnett HJM, Warlow CP. Carotid endarterectomy and the measurement of carotid stenosis. Stroke. 1993;24:1281-1284.[Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. Setacci, E. Chisci, F. Setacci, F. Iacoponi, and G. de Donato Grading Carotid Intrastent Restenosis: A 6-Year Follow-Up Study Stroke, April 1, 2008; 39(4): 1189 - 1196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Bladin, A. V. Alexandrov, and J. Norris Comparison of the Carotid Stenosis Index With CT Angiography Stroke, October 1, 2007; 38(10): e100 - e101. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S. Bartlett, T. D. Walters, S. P. Symons, and A. J. Fox Response to Letter by Bladin et al Stroke, October 1, 2007; 38(10): e102 - e102. [Full Text] [PDF]

				B. H. Walpoth, P. Zammaretti, M. Cikirikcioglu, E. Khabiri, M. K. Djebaili, J.-C. Pache, J.-C. Tille, Y. Aggoun, D. Morel, A. Kalangos, et al. Enhanced intimal thickening of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene grafts coated with fibrin or fibrin-releasing vascular endothelial growth factor in the pig carotid artery interposition model J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2007; 133(5): 1163 - 1170. [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]

				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]

				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]

				A. V. Alexandrov, D. S. Brodie, A. McLean, P. Hamilton, J. Murphy, and P. N. Burns Correlation of Peak Systolic Velocity and Angiographic Measurement of Carotid Stenosis Revisited Stroke, February 1, 1997; 28(2): 339 - 342. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				N. Suwanwela, U. Can, K. L. Furie, J. F. Southern, N. R. Macdonald, C. S. Ogilvy, C. J. Hansen, F. S. Buonanno, W. M. Abbott, W. J. Koroshetz, et al. Carotid Doppler Ultrasound Criteria for Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis Based on Residual Lumen Diameter Calculated From En Bloc Carotid Endarterectomy Specimens Stroke, November 1, 1996; 27(11): 1965 - 1969. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				C. F. Bladin, A. C.F. Colchester, D. J. Hawkes, A. M. Seifalian, N. Iqbal, and C. R. Hardingham Morphological and Hemodynamic Assessments of Carotid Stenosis Using Quantitative Digital Subtraction Angiography Stroke, September 1, 1996; 27(9): 1672 - 1678. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				G.R. Young, P.R.D. Humphrey, T.E. Nixon, and E.T.S. Smith 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 Stroke, March 1, 1996; 27(3): 467 - 473. [Abstract] [Full Text]

This Article Abstract 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 Bladin, C.F. Articles by Norris, J.W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bladin, C.F. Articles by Norris, J.W.