(Stroke. 1997;28:597-602.)
© 1997 American Heart Association, Inc.
Articles |
Duplex Ultrasound Criteria for the Identification of Carotid Stenosis Should Be Laboratory Specific
From the Departments of Medicine (K.M.K.), Radiology (J.F.P.), and Surgery (A.D.W.), Brigham and Women's Hospital, and the Department of Surgery (J.J.S., K.C.K.), Beth Israel Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.
Correspondence to K. Craig Kent, MD, Beth Israel Hospital, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215.
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background and Purpose Published criteria for the determination of carotid stenosis have been widely applied by vascular laboratories. We compared two vascular laboratories and their duplex ultrasound (DU) machines in terms of their overall diagnostic performance and the optimal criteria to identify patients who have a 70% to 99% stenosis of the internal carotid artery.
Methods Measurements of stenosis by DU and angiography were compared for 123 carotid arteries (60 arteries, laboratory A; 63 arteries, laboratory B). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were created, and the areas under the ROC curves and the optimal criteria for determining a 70% to 99% stenosis were compared. Multiple regression analysis was used to measure the effect of laboratory on the relationship between angiographic stenosis and DU velocity parameters.
Results Areas under the ROC curves were similar for both laboratories (0.89 to 0.90, laboratory A; 0.90 to 0.92, laboratory B). However, the optimal criterion for the identification of a 70% to 99% carotid stenosis was different for each laboratory. For most velocity parameters, based on regression analyses, the predicted percent angiographic stenosis for laboratory A was significantly greater than that for laboratory B. In addition, performance differed between the laboratories when established criteria from the literature were applied.
Conclusions Two vascular laboratories with similar diagnostic accuracy by ROC analysis have markedly different "optimal" DU criteria. For a given angiographic stenosis, velocities in one laboratory were consistently greater than those in the other laboratory. Laboratory-specific criteria rather than published criteria should be used to identify patients with internal carotid artery stenoses.
Key Words: carotid stenosis • diagnosis • ultrasonics
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Duplex ultrasonography is the established method for screening patients with suspected carotid stenosis. Because of the cost, inconvenience, and risk associated with contrast angiography, a number of centers advocate the primary use of DU for the preoperative evaluation of patients for carotid endarterectomy.1 2 3 4 5 6 Recently, we found DU to be a potentially cost-effective alternative to contrast angiography in the preoperative evaluation of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis.6 Because of the frequent use of DU in the diagnosis and management of carotid disease, variations in diagnostic performance among laboratories or DU devices can have a significant impact on the outcomes of patients with carotid stenosis.
Typically, velocities measured within the CCA and ICA are used to establish criteria for determining a particular degree of carotid stenosis. These "criteria" are chosen to allow optimization of a desired end point, such as diagnostic accuracy or stroke reduction. For example, Moneta et al,7 on the basis of achieving maximal accuracy, found that a 70% to 99% angiographic stenosis was best predicted by a ratio of the ICA PSV to the CCA PSV greater than 4.0.
The results from NASCET8 prompted a number of investigators to identify appropriate DU criteria for detecting a 70% to 99% carotid stenosis.7 9 10 11 However, these reports fail to reach consensus; for example, for ICA PSV, Moneta et al7 found that readings >325 cm/s resulted in the greatest accuracy, whereas Faught et al9 found that an ICA PSV >210 cm/s maximized accuracy. Application of the ICA PSV criteria found by Faught et al to the laboratory data presented by Moneta et al results in a decrease in accuracy from 88.0% to 83.7%. We sought to further understand the reasons for these differences by comparing five DU velocity parameters with angiographic results for two neighboring but distinctly separate laboratories in terms of their abilities to optimally predict a 70% to 99% angiographic stenosis.
|
Subjects and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Over a 19-month period, we studied 32 patients at the Beth Israel Hospital and 32 patients at the Brigham and Women's Hospital who were referred for evaluation of carotid stenosis by contrast angiography. All patients were initially studied with DU and then by contrast angiography. The average patient age was 70 years (range, 48 to 87 years). There were 42 men and 22 women. Risk factors for atherosclerotic occlusive disease included hypertension (73%), smoking (64%), diabetes (35%), and hypercholesterolemia (47%). Of the 128 arteries evaluated, 123 were imaged by both techniques (4 arteries were inadequately imaged by contrast angiography and 1 was inadequately imaged by DU). Fifty-four arteries were symptomatic and 69 were asymptomatic.
DU was performed by certified vascular technologists in both
laboratories (one in laboratory A, two in laboratory B). Examinations
were performed using either an Acuson 128 (laboratory A) or an ATL
Ultramark 9 (Advanced Technology Laboratories; laboratory B) color
duplex scanner. Velocity waveforms were sequentially obtained from the
CCA and ICA. The EDV and PSV were recorded at each of the above
locations. In both laboratories, the angle between the ultrasound beam
and the direction of blood flow was maintained at 
60°. Sampling
techniques were similar in terms of the frequency of measurements and
the position of the Doppler cursor. High carrier frequency linear-array
transducers were used in both laboratories. The frequency of the
Doppler probe varied between laboratories (3.5 MHz, laboratory A; 5
MHz, laboratory B), as did the method used to align the flow-velocity
vector (laboratory A used the color flow image and laboratory B used
the B-mode image). A markedly diminished velocity implied high-grade
stenosis, and the absence of flow implied occlusion.
Digital subtraction arteriograms included at least two views of the
carotid bifurcation and intracranial vessels. Images were traced from
an overhead projector and then measured with digital calipers (Fowler).
Percent stenosis was determined in the manner previously described by
NASCET.8 We used angiographic measurements from a single
reviewer for our analysis and checked the reliability of this
assignment with readings from a second reviewer (
=0.93).
ROC analysis12 was used to calculate sensitivities and specificities of DU for detecting a 70% to 99% stenosis of the carotid artery using contrast angiography as the gold standard. For this analysis, we assumed that all arteries were independent.13 We evaluated five different duplex velocity parameters: (1) ICA PSV, (2) ICA EDV, (3) ICA/CCA PSV, (4) ICA/CCA EDV, and (5) (ICA PSV)/(CCA EDV). The areas under the ROC curves were obtained by the trapezoidal method,14 which is a nonparametric procedure that does not require any assumptions regarding the functional form of the ROC curve.
Multiple regression analyses were performed to determine the effect of the vascular laboratory on the association between percent angiographic stenosis and each of the DU velocity parameters. We used a forward stepwise procedure to fit regression equations, with percent angiographic stenosis as the dependent variable and each of the five aforementioned velocity parameters as the independent variable. To account for potential curvilinear relationships between the velocity parameters and percent angiographic stenosis, we allowed for squared and cubed velocity terms to enter the regression model. The independent variable of interest was an indicator variable for DU laboratory. A value of P<.05 was considered significant.
Optimal duplex criteria for designating a DU test result as positive
were determined separately for the two laboratories using the five
duplex velocity parameters as continuous variables (ie, velocities were
not categorized). We used two end points for selecting the optimal
criteria for the identification of a 70% to 99% angiographic
stenosis. First, we chose a criterion that resulted in the greatest
accuracy. For every possible velocity cut point (ie, an ICA PSV cut
point of 200 cm/s indicates a criterion of >200 cm/s for calling a
test positive), there is an associated sensitivity, specificity, and
accuracy. To determine the optimal duplex criterion, we chose the
velocity cut point that was associated with the greatest accuracy. As a
second approach, we selected the criterion that minimized the
probability of stroke at 2 years for symptomatic
patients.15 We have created and previously reported a
model that allows analysis of stroke as an end point.6
This analysis is based on the fact that a noninvasive test, when used
preoperatively for carotid endarterectomy, might result in late strokes
as a result of inappropriate treatment dictated by inaccurate test
results. For the stroke minimization analysis, we assigned 2-year
stroke risks of 12.6%, 27.6%, 7.6%, and 10.8% for true-positive,
false-negative, true-negative, and false-positive results,
respectively.6 8 Bootstrap confidence
intervals16 were calculated for the differences between
the cut points associated with each of the optimal criteria in the two
laboratories. One-sided confidence intervals were calculated on the
basis of the results from the multiple regression analyses (ie, a
positive regression parameter estimate for laboratory A corresponds to
a lower cut point for the laboratory A DU device; see Fig 1
). In addition, we applied published criteria for the
determination of a 70% to 99% carotid stenosis to each DU device and
compared the resulting sensitivities and specificities.
|
) and B (
). Fitted lines based on regression equations
are superimposed on the plot. A greater predicted angiographic stenosis
for laboratory A corresponds to a lower cut point for predicting a 70%
stenosis. |
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Of the 60 carotid arteries imaged by DU in laboratory A, 33 (55.0%), 20 (33.3%), and 7 (11.7%) had 0% to 69%, 70% to 99%, and 100% angiographic stenoses, respectively. Of the 63 carotid arteries imaged by DU in laboratory B, 36 (57.1%), 19 (30.2%), and 8 (12.7%) had 0% to 69%, 70% to 99%, and 100% angiographic stenoses, respectively. One angiographically occluded artery was misdiagnosed as patent in each laboratory.
The areas under the ROC curves for each of the five velocity parameters
ranged between 0.89 and 0.90 for the laboratory A device and between
0.90 and 0.92 for the laboratory B device, depending on the velocity
parameter used. For example, the areas under the ROC curves for ICA PSV
were 0.90 and 0.92 for laboratories A and B, respectively. The results
were similar when the patients who had occlusions were omitted (0.89 to
0.91, laboratory A; 0.90 to 0.93, laboratory B). Although the two
devices were equivalent in terms of their overall diagnostic accuracy,
two points along the ROC curves that corresponded to the same cut point
were rarely proximate (Fig 2).
|
Table 1 shows the results from the multiple regression
analyses. Significant curvilinear relationships (either quadratic or
cubic) were found between percent angiographic stenosis and each of the
five velocity parameters. There was a significant difference between
laboratories for the following velocity parameters: ICA EDV, ICA/CCA
EDV, and (ICA PSV)/(CCA EDV). A borderline significant difference was
found for ICA/CCA PSV (P=.056). In addition, the direction
of the effect was consistent for all of the velocity parameters. The
angiographic stenosis predicted by the fitted model for laboratory A
was greater than that predicted for laboratory B by an absolute
increase of 5.1% for ICA PSV to 13.0% for ICA/CCA EDV.
|
Tables 2 and 3 show the optimal criteria
for the identification of patients with 70% to 99% angiographic
stenosis based on (1) maximization of diagnostic accuracy and (2)
minimization of the expected 2-year risk of stroke for symptomatic
patients. The cut points associated with the optimal DU criteria were
consistently greater for laboratory B. For example, for ICA PSV, the
optimal criteria were >229 cm/s for the laboratory A device and >340
cm/s for the laboratory B device for both optimization techniques. For
(ICA PSV)/(CCA EDV), the optimal criteria not only differed between
laboratories but also differed according to the optimization end point
used. For laboratory A, the criterion that maximized diagnostic
accuracy was a ratio >10.5, while the criterion that minimized the
expected 2-year risk of stroke was a ratio >5.8. For laboratory B, the
criterion that maximized diagnostic accuracy was a ratio >21.7, while
the criterion that minimized the expected 2-year risk of stroke was a
ratio >13.7. Based on one-way bootstrap confidence intervals, most of
the differences in optimal criteria were significant
(P<.05) or borderline significant
(.05P<.10).
|
|
We applied three published duplex criteria for identifying 70% to 99%
angiographic stenosis and found substantial variability between the
sensitivity and specificity estimates for the two DU machines (Table 4). For the laboratory A device, the criterion found by
Hunink et al10 to best predict a 70% angiographic cutoff
(ICA PSV >230 cm/s) resulted in the highest accuracy of the three
criteria considered; however, applying this criterion to the laboratory
B DU device resulted in the lowest accuracy of the three criteria
considered. Alternatively, applying the criteria recommended by Faught
et al9 (ICA PSV >130 cm/s and ICA EDV >100 cm/s)
resulted in the highest accuracy for the laboratory B DU device and the
lowest accuracy for the laboratory A device.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
We found that the DU measurements that best predicted percent angiographic stenosis differed between two vascular laboratories. When the same velocity parameters were applied to both laboratories, the predicted angiographic stenosis for laboratory A was consistently greater than that for laboratory B for all five parameters considered. We also found that the optimal duplex criteria for identifying 70% to 99% angiographic stenosis varied with the laboratory performing the study. Specifically, for each velocity parameter, the optimal velocity cut point for the DU device in laboratory A was lower than that for the laboratory B device (Fig 1
). Similar observations were made by the
investigators of the Asymptomatic Carotid Atherosclerosis
Study,17 in which optimal ICA PSV cut points for
predicting a >60% stenosis ranged from 151 to 390 cm/s among
different centers.18 Our findings also explain why the
recommended optimal criteria for predicting a 70% to 99% diameter
narrowing of the carotid bifurcation vary so significantly among
published studies.7 9 10 11 We used two end points for selecting the best criteria for each of the five velocity parameters: (1) maximization of diagnostic accuracy and (2) minimization of 2-year stroke risk for symptomatic patients. In the first case, the goal is to minimize the number of false-positive and false-negative results. This approach assumes that a false-negative result has the same importance as a false-positive result. The second approach weights each of the four possible test results (true-positive, false-negative, true-negative, and false-positive) by the expected probability of incurring a stroke by 2 years, based primarily on data published in NASCET.6 8 Although many of the studies that define optimal duplex criteria use accuracy maximization as their goal, an approach that minimizes morbidity may be more important than an approach that maximizes accuracy. Our results show that changes in the optimization approach can alter the criterion used to judge a 70% to 99% stenosis.
At least three DU criteria have been identified by various authors for
determination of a 70% to 99% angiographic
stenosis.7 9 10 However, application of these criteria to
our data resulted in great variability in the estimates of sensitivity
and specificity (Table 4). For example, for laboratory A, sensitivity
and specificity were 68% and 93%, respectively, for the criteria
proposed by Faught et al9 (ICA PSV >130 cm/s and ICA EDV
>100 cm/s) and were 100% and 83%, respectively, for the criteria
proposed by Hunink et al10 (ICA PSV >230 cm/s). If the
former criteria were used, there would be a substantial number of
patients with surgical disease who would not be treated, whereas if the
latter criterion were used, there would be a significant number of
patients without disease who would be exposed to the risks of surgery.
If a center were to use criteria that produced a sensitivity of 68%
and a specificity of 93% for preoperative imaging of symptomatic
patients, then the expected 2-year risk of stroke would be 10.9%.
Alternatively, if the criteria were changed to correspond to a
sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 83%, then the expected
2-year risk of stroke for symptomatic patients would be reduced to
9.6%. In other words, use of one published criterion versus another
could result in approximately 13 strokes averted, on average, for every
1000 patients evaluated with DU in laboratory A.
The source of the observed difference in diagnostic performance of the
two laboratories is not clear. The patient population and the technique
for performing examinations for both laboratories were similar. The
angle between the ultrasound beam and the direction of blood flow was
maintained at 60°. However, the operating frequency of the probes
was different for each laboratory (3.5 MHz, laboratory A; 5 MHz,
laboratory B), as was the manner in which the flow velocity vector was
aligned (color flow image, laboratory A; B-mode image, laboratory B).
Although these differences might affect the technical adequacy of the
examination, they should not introduce bias in the estimated
velocities.19 The possibility that this effect might
solely be operator dependent is not supported by the interobserver
variability data already published for one of the two laboratories. A
net bias in velocity estimates was not seen when one observer is
compared with other observers.20 Therefore, differences
between DU machines seem to be the most likely explanation for the
disparity between laboratories that we identified.
Differences between machines in the methodology used to generate, acquire, and angle-correct the returning echoes might be the source of this bias. Daigle et al21 showed that performance of ultrasound devices was affected by the location in the imaging field that was being sampled and the direction of the ultrasound beam. The method used to generate the DU beam relies on the sequential firing of a number of selected crystals in the transducer. This process can introduce ambiguity in the orientation of the resultant ultrasound beam. This can then cause artifactual spectral broadening of the returning echoes and tend to increase velocity estimates. Although this effect is compensated for, the method of comparison differs between manufacturers. It likely accounts for the effect we have encountered when two differing DU machines are used to evaluate carotid artery stenoses.
There are several limitations of our study. First, this was an observational study; hence, no patient was evaluated in both laboratories. However, the patient populations were similar in their clinical and demographic variables. Second, there were a limited number of patients evaluated at each laboratory, thus lowering our statistical power. However, even with a relatively small sample size, we were able to uncover an overwhelming trend across all of the five velocity parameters that we considered. For a specific angiographic stenosis, our results indicate that one laboratory consistently measured higher velocities than the other laboratory. Knowing whether this phenomenon is manufacturer specific or technologist specific would be of utmost importance for vascular laboratory directors and policy makers.
Our study supports the tenet that diagnostic criteria for determining a 70% to 99% carotid stenosis should be established for each instrument model and laboratory and not extrapolated from external studies. All vascular laboratories should be required to perform an objective evaluation of the diagnostic performance of their scanners, as well as provide definitions of optimal criteria for each relevant stenosis. In addition, more research needs to be focused on identifying those factors that are important contributors to variability in DU measurements. Adjustments then can be made when results between different scanners and/or laboratories are compared. In conclusion, we feel that it is critically important that each vascular laboratory determine its own optimal criteria and that this will have a positive impact on the care of patients with carotid disease.
|
Selected Abbreviations and Acronyms |
|---|
|
Received September 27, 1996; revision received December 3, 1996; accepted December 3, 1996.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. Chervu A, Moore WS. Carotid endarterectomy without arteriography. Ann Vasc Surg. 1994;8:296-302. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
2. Dawson DL, Zierler E, Strandness DE Jr, Clowes AW, Kohler TR. The role of duplex scanning and arteriography before carotid endarterectomy: a prospective study. J Vasc Surg. 1993;18:673-683. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3. Goodson SF, Flanigan DP, Bishara RA, Schuler JJ, Kikta MJ, Meyer JP. Can carotid duplex scanning supplant arteriography in patients with focal carotid territory symptoms? J Vasc Surg. 1987;5:551-557. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Geuder JW, Lamparello PJ, Riles TS, Giangola G, Imparato AM. Is duplex scanning sufficient evaluation before carotid endarterectomy? J Vasc Surg. 1989;9:193-201.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
5. Moore WS, Ziomek S, Quinones-Baldrich WJ, Machleder HI, Busuttil RW, Baker JD. Can clinical evaluation and noninvasive testing substitute for arteriography in the evaluation of carotid artery disease? Ann Surg. 1988;208:91-94. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
6.
Kent KC, Kuntz KM, Patel MR, Kim D, Klufas RA,
Whittemore AD, Polak JF, Skillman JJ, Edelman RR. Perioperative
imaging strategies for carotid endarterectomy: an analysis of morbidity
and cost-effectiveness in symptomatic patients.
JAMA. 1995;274:888-893.
7. Moneta GL, Edwards JM, Chitwood RW, Taylor LM, Lee RW, Cummings CA, Porter JM. Correlation of North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) angiographic definition of 70% to 99% internal carotid artery stenosis with duplex scanning. J Vasc Surg. 1993;17:152-159. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
8. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:445-453. [Abstract]
9. Faught WE, Mattos MA, van Bemmelen PS, Hodgson KJ, Barkmeier LD, Ramsey DE, Sumner DS. Color-flow duplex scanning of carotid arteries: new velocity criteria based on receiver operator characteristic analysis for threshold stenoses used in the symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid trials. J Vasc Surg. 1994;19:818-828. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10.
Hunink MGM, Polak JF, Barlan MM, O'Leary DH. Detection
and quantification of carotid artery stenosis: efficacy of various
Doppler velocity parameters. AJR Am J Radiol. 1993;160:619-625.
11. Neale ML, Chambers JL, Kelly AT, Connard S, Lawton MA, Roche J, Appleberg M. Reappraisal of duplex criteria to assess significant carotid stenosis with special reference to reports from the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial and the European Carotid Surgery Trial. J Vasc Surg. 1994;20:642-649. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
12. Swets JA. ROC analysis applied to the evaluation of medical imaging techniques. Invest Radiol. 1979;14:109-121. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
13.
Robinson ML, Sacks D, Perlmutter GS, Marinelli DL.
Diagnostic criteria for carotid duplex sonography. AJR
Am J Radiol. 1988;151:1045-1049.
14.
Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area
under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
Radiology. 1982;143:29-36.
15. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med. 1980;302:1109-1117. [Abstract]
16. Efron B. Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat. 1979;7:1-26.
17.
Executive Committee for the Asymptomatic Carotid
Atherosclerosis Study. Endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid artery
stenosis. JAMA. 1995;273:1421-1428.
18. Howard G, Chambless LE, Baker WH, Ricotta JJ, Jones AM, O'Leary D, Howard VJ, Elliott TJ, Lefkowitz DS, Toole JF. A multicenter validation study of Doppler ultrasound versus angiography. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 1991;1:166-173.
19. Kremkau FW. Doppler Ultrasound: Principles and Instruments. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1990:92-94.
20.
Polak JF, Dobkin GR, O'Leary DH, Wang AM, Cutler SS.
Internal carotid artery stenosis: accuracy and reproducibility of
color-Doppler-assisted duplex imaging. Radiology. 1989;173:793-798.
21. Daigle RJ, Stavros AT, Lee RM. Overestimation of velocity and frequency values by multielement linear array Dopplers. J Vasc Tech. 1990;14:206-213.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  R. E. Latchaw, M. J. Alberts, M. H. Lev, J. J. Connors, R. E. Harbaugh, R. T. Higashida, R. Hobson, C. S. Kidwell, W. J. Koroshetz, V. Mathews, et al. Recommendations for Imaging of Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association Stroke, November 1, 2009; 40(11): 3646 - 3678. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. P. Yan, D. J. Clark, M. R. Jaff, T. J. Kiernan, R. M. Schainfeld, S. Lessio, and K. Rosenfield Carotid Duplex Ultrasound Velocity Measurements Versus Intravascular Ultrasound in Detecting Carotid In-Stent Restenosis Circ Cardiovasc Interv, October 1, 2009; 2(5): 438 - 443. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. H. Heijenbrok-Kal, E. Buskens, P. J. Nederkoorn, Y. van der Graaf, and M. G. M. Hunink Optimal Peak Systolic Velocity Threshold at Duplex US for Determining the Need for Carotid Endarterectomy: A Decision Analytic Approach Radiology, December 21, 2005; (2005) 2381041078. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Kamouchi, K. Kishikawa, Y. Okada, T. Inoue, S. Ibayashi, and M. Iida Reappraisal of Flow Velocity Ratio in Common Carotid Artery to Predict Hemodynamic Change in Carotid Stenosis AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., April 1, 2005; 26(4): 957 - 962. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Logason, S. Karacagil, A. Tulga Ulus, and H.-G. Hardemark The Impact of Different Spectral Doppler Criteria on the Proportion of High-Grade Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis in Patients Undergoing Duplex Scanning Angiology, May 1, 2002; 53(3): 297 - 301. [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Visser and M. G. Myriam Hunink Peripheral Arterial Disease: Gadolinium-enhanced MR Angiography versus Color-guided Duplex US-A Meta-analysis Radiology, July 1, 2000; 216(1): 67 - 77. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. D. Kreske, S. W. Wolk, C. J. Shanley, R. M. Lampman, J. E. Knake, L. A. Lange, E. E. Erlandson, and W. M. Whitehouse Jr Duplex Ultrasonography to Predict Internal Carotid Artery Stenoses Exceeding 50% and 70% as Defined by NASCET: The Need for Multiple Criteria Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, September 1, 1999; 33(5): 497 - 506. [Abstract] [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]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||