(Stroke. 1998;29:2352-2356.)
© 1998 American Heart Association, Inc.
Original Contributions |
Changes Over Time in Optimal Duplex Threshold for the Identification of Patients Eligible for Carotid Endarterectomy
From the Department of Radiology (O.E.H.E., P.C.B., M. van L., M.S. van L.), the Department of Vascular Surgery (B.C.E.), and the Julius Center for Patient Oriented Research (O.E.H.E., Y.T. van de S., Y. van der G.), University Hospital Utrecht (Netherlands).
Correspondence to Otto E.H. Elgersma, MD, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, Netherlands. E-mail: oelgersm{at}azu1.azu.nl
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Background and Purpose—Two surgical trials established that carotid endarterectomy is beneficial to symptomatic patients who have a severe internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis on angiograms. Duplex ultrasonography–derived hemodynamic parameters show a good correlation with angiography and are often used for detecting severe ICA stenoses. However, duplex performance is ultrasound machine and operator dependent. Over time both may change, possibly affecting duplex performance. We compared duplex performance of 2 time periods in 1 specific vascular laboratory using angiography as the gold standard.
Methods—Consecutive patients who underwent both angiography and duplex examinations of the ICA were evaluated (first period, 60 patients; second period, 61 patients). Peak systolic velocity and several other hemodynamic parameters and ratios were analyzed by receiver operating characteristic curves in their ability to detect severe ICA stenoses. The optimal parameter and threshold were determined for each period. Subsequently, duplex test characteristics were compared after the optimal thresholds of both the first and the second periods were applied in the second period.
Results—In both periods peak systolic velocity of the ICA was the best test parameter; areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve were similar (0.957 and 0.954, respectively). However, the optimal threshold was different. The optimal threshold in the second period was 270 cm/s. When the optimal threshold of 210 cm/s of the first period was applied in the second period, test characteristics changed significantly. Sensitivity increased from 98% to 100%, and specificity decreased from 85% to 71% (P=0.004).
Conclusions—The optimal threshold for detecting severe ICA stenoses with duplex ultrasonography in our laboratory changed over time. Individual laboratories should assess duplex accuracy regularly and adjust adopted criteria if necessary to keep diagnostic performance optimal.
Key Words: angiography • carotid stenosis • ultrasonography
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) and the European Carotid Surgery Trial both established that carotid endarterectomy is beneficial to patients with symptoms of cerebral ischemia and a severe internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis on selective angiograms (70% to 99%).1 2
In the diagnostic process of patients with carotid disease, duplex ultrasonography plays an important role because it is the initial, and in some clinics the only, diagnostic test for assessing and quantifying carotid artery disease.3 Duplex offers several hemodynamic parameters for describing blood flow across stenoses. A parameter extensively studied for grading ICA stenosis is peak systolic velocity (PSV). A good correlation between PSV values and angiographic findings has been reported in many studies.4 5 6 7 However, several other parameters have been proposed as well, including end-diastolic velocity (EDV), the ratio PSVICA/PSV common carotid artery (CCA), and the ratio EDVICA/EDVCCA.6 7 8 9 10 11
Duplex performance depends on the ultrasound machine used and the skills of the operator (ie, vascular technologists).12 13 14 15 Every individual laboratory should therefore validate its own criteria for grading ICA stenosis before duplex can be considered a reliable diagnostic tool for patient selection. Over time, equipment and vascular technologists may change, possibly affecting duplex performance.
Our hypothesis was that for duplex to remain a reliable diagnostic tool for patients with carotid disease, locally adopted criteria might need adjustment after a period of time. Therefore, we studied the value of different duplex-derived hemodynamic parameters and ratios for detecting severe ICA stenoses in 2 time periods and compared the diagnostic performance of duplex in these periods.
|
Subjects and Methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
To obtain duplex criteria for detecting a stenosis of
70%, we evaluated the measurements of 60 consecutive patients (119
bifurcations) who underwent both intra-arterial digital
subtraction angiography (IA-DSA) and duplex examinations between July
1992 and February 1994 (the first period). The population consisted of
41 men and 19 women. The mean age was 64 years (range, 40 to 81 years).
The mean interval between duplex and IA-DSA was 25 days (range, 0 to
113 days).16 To reevaluate the adopted duplex
criteria, we repeated the study in 61 consecutive patients (120
bifurcations) who underwent both IA-DSA and duplex examinations between
October 1996 and August 1997 (the second period). This population
consisted of 47 men and 14 women. The mean age was 65 years (range, 44
to 81 years). The mean interval between duplex and IA-DSA was 17 days
(range, 0 to 91 days).
Indications for referral for IA-DSA were similar in both periods.
Patients with symptoms of carotid disease in the past 6 months,
including transient ischemic attack, stroke, and amaurosis
fugax, were first screened by duplex. Patients with PSV values in the
symptomatic ICA of 150 cm/s (suspect for carotid disease)
or with a suspected subtotal stenosis or occlusion were
subsequently referred for IA-DSA.
Five different vascular technicians performed the duplex examinations. However, in 6 years 2 vascular technicians left and were replaced by new trainee technicians, whereas the 3 other vascular technicians became more experienced in performing duplex examinations.
Duplex Examinations
Duplex was performed with an ATL Ultramark 9 HDI (Advanced
Technology Laboratories). A sample volume of 1.5 mm was
used, and the Doppler angle was aligned to the jet and kept below
60 degrees. In the first period a 10–5 MHz broadband linear
array transducer with a pulsed Doppler frequency of 5 MHz was used.
For more deeply situated carotid bifurcations, a 5-MHz linear array
transducer with a pulsed Doppler frequency of 4 MHz was used.
Conversely, in the second period a 7–4 MHz broadband linear array
transducer with a pulsed Doppler frequency of 4 MHz was used in all
patients to visualize the carotid bifurcation.
The technique for performing duplex was consistent in both
periods. The pulsed Doppler gate was positioned in the center of
the CCA 
2 cm proximal to the carotid bifurcation, and a spectral
waveform was obtained. From this spectrum, PSVCCA
and EDVCCA were derived. Subsequently, the area
with the most severe stenosis was located with color
Doppler, and a Doppler spectral waveform was obtained at the
point of the greatest mean frequency shift. From this spectrum,
PSVICA and EDVICA were
derived.
Intra-Arterial Digital Subtraction Angiography
The carotid bifurcation was imaged in 2 different directions
(lateral, posteroanterior, or oblique). The view showing the most
severe stenosis was used for comparison with duplex. In the
first period, lumen reduction measurements were performed with the
NASCET method (Stenosis=[1-(Minimal Residual Lumen/Distal
Normal ICA Lumen Diameter)]x100%) on printed hard copies with a x7
magnifying loupe marked in 0.1-mm increments. In the second period,
measurements were performed with the NASCET method on hard copies by
another observer using a caliper with a digital display (PAV
Electronic; resolution, 0.01 mm). To exclude that variability due
to different observers or methods of measuring stenosis on
angiograms would influence the analysis of duplex
performances, the observer from the second period repeated the
measurements on the hard copies from the first period using the caliper
with the digital display.
Duplex and IA-DSA were interpreted independently from each other. IA-DSA was considered the gold standard for grading carotid stenosis.
Statistical Analysis
We evaluated PSVICA,
EDVICA, the ratio
PSVICA/PSVCCA, and the
ratio EDVICA/EDVCCA by
receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis in their
ability to detect an ICA stenosis of
70%.17 Occluded ICA on IA-DSA, as well as ICA
showing no velocity or very low velocities with high resistance signals
and minimal residual lumen, associated with occlusion and subtotal
stenosis, respectively, were excluded from ROC
analysis.
To assess the best hemodynamic parameter or
ratio for detecting an ICA stenosis of 70%, the areas under
the curve (AUC) and corresponding SEs were calculated and compared. The
parameter or ratio with the largest AUC was defined as the
best test criterion. Because we used duplex as a screening tool for
carotid disease, the threshold value was optimized by maximizing
sensitivity while maintaining high test accuracy for both periods
independently.18
In addition, logistic regression analysis was used in both
periods to assess whether combining the various
hemodynamic parameters and ratios would
increase duplex performance (ie, increase the AUC). Models were
fit with various combinations of single parameters and
ratios to estimate regression coefficients. Next, data of individual
patients were placed in the regression equation for estimation of the
probability of an ICA stenosis of 70%. These estimated
probabilities were then subjected to ROC analysis.
The McNemar test, a nonparametric test for 2 related dichotomous variables, was used to compare the test characteristics of duplex that would have been obtained if the optimal threshold of the first period had been applied in the second period instead of its own optimal threshold.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Table 1
shows the IA-DSA–derived
ICA lumen reduction measurements categorized as no stenosis to
mild stenosis (0% to 29%), moderate stenosis (30% to
69%), severe stenosis (70% to 99%), and occlusion (100%)
for both periods. From the 15 occlusions or suspected occlusions
diagnosed with duplex in the first period, 13 were confirmed with
IA-DSA and 2 were diagnosed as subtotal stenosis, whereas 3
occlusions on IA-DSA were diagnosed as severe stenosis with
duplex. For further ROC analysis, PSVICA
values were available for 101 arteries, EDVICA
values for 92,
PSVICA/PSVCCA ratios for
101, and EDVICA/EDVCCA
ratios for 92. In the second period, 1 subtotal stenosis and 14
occlusions or suspected occlusions diagnosed with duplex were all
confirmed with IA-DSA, whereas 1 occlusion on IA-DSA was diagnosed as a
subtotal stenosis with duplex. For further ROC
analysis, PSVICA values were available
for 104 arteries, EDVICA values for 100,
PSVICA/PSVCCA ratios for
103, and EDVICA/EDVCCA
ratios for 98.
|
Table 2 shows the results of the ROC
analyses for the different hemodynamic
parameters and ratios from the first and the second periods
expressed as AUC. In the first period, both parameter
PSVICA and ratio
PSVICA/PSVCCA were the most
accurate, with an AUC of 0.957 and 0.959, respectively. We defined
PSVICA as the best test parameter for
detecting a 70% stenosis of the ICA because it was the
easiest to obtain and did not require calculations. In the second
period, parameter PSVICA was the most
accurate with an AUC of 0.954. Table 3
shows the results of logistic regression analysis, which
demonstrated that combining the various parameters and
ratios did not significantly increase duplex performance in
both the first and the second periods.
|
|
The Figure shows the ROC curves
associated with the ROC analyses of
PSVICA with different threshold values for a
stenosis of 70%. In the ROC analysis of data from
the first period, an optimal PSVICA threshold of
210 cm/s was observed (sensitivity of 100% [95% CI, 88% to 100%];
specificity of 84% [95% CI, 73% to 92%]).16
When the angiograms from the first period were analyzed by the
observer from the second period, the AUC and optimal
PSVICA threshold (0.952 and 200 cm/s,
respectively) were similar to the original analysis. In the
second period, however, a PSVICA of 270 cm/s
appeared to be the optimal threshold for a stenosis of 70%
(sensitivity of 98% [95% CI, 87% to 99%]; specificity of 85%
[95% CI, 74% to 92%]). Applying the optimal
PSVICA threshold of 210 cm/s from the first
period in the second period instead of using the threshold of 270 cm/s
would significantly affect the test characteristics
(P=0.004). Sensitivity would increase to 100%, and
specificity would decrease to 71%.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Our study showed that even when only 1 type of ultrasound machine is used in a specific vascular laboratory, locally adopted duplex criteria for detecting a
70% ICA stenosis do not remain
valid over time. Of the different acquired hemodynamic
parameters and ratios, PSVICA was
considered the best test parameter in the first as well as
in the second period, but its optimal threshold was not
consistent. ROC curves facilitate the choice of a threshold. If duplex is used as a screening tool, a high sensitivity is required in order not to miss any patient who may benefit from carotid endarterectomy. On the other hand, if duplex is used as the sole preoperative test for carotid disease, a high specificity is required as well in order not to perform unnecessary carotid endarterectomy. Because we use duplex as a screening tool for carotid disease, we chose a PSVICA threshold of 210 cm/s on the basis of its high sensitivity, while maintaining high test accuracy, in the first period. Conversely, nearly the same sensitivity and specificity were achieved with a threshold of 270 cm/s in the second period. Differences in the method of stenosis measurement on angiograms between the 2 observers could not explain the change over time of the optimal PSVICA threshold. When we applied the optimal threshold of 210 cm/s of the first period in the second period, the number of false-positive duplex examinations increased remarkably, which would have led to significantly more carotid IA-DSA procedures, with a reported risk of stroke or death ranging from 1% to 4% in patients with atherosclerosis.19 20
A range of PSVICA thresholds has been suggested
for detecting an ICA stenosis of 70% according to NASCET
criteria. Carpenter et al4 proposed a
PSVICA threshold of 210 cm/s, whereas Neale et
al5 found a PSVICA of 270
cm/s to be the optimal threshold with high sensitivity and high
accuracy. The wide variability in published criteria indicates the
importance of individual validation of duplex criteria against the gold
standard of IA-DSA before duplex can be considered a reliable
diagnostic tool for patient selection. However, we found
that even when individual duplex criteria have been established, these
may not remain valid for a long time.
The source of the variability in thresholds that we found is not fully understood. Possible explanations are the replacement of 2 of the 5 vascular technologists, the differences in the technologists' technique, and the changing level of experience.12 14 15 Additionally, changes within the ultrasound machine (ie, upgrades) can contribute to the variability in thresholds.21 22 23 24 Two major changes occurred in addition to several other software upgrades in the past years. The 7–4 MHz broadband linear array transducer became available in between the first period and the second period (1995), which improved the visualization of the carotid bifurcation remarkably and hence facilitated the acquisition of the PSVICA at the point of the greatest mean frequency shift. Furthermore, real-time Doppler analysis was introduced in the middle of the first period (1993), which allowed vascular technologists to automatically trace the Doppler waveforms and distillate the highest PSV and EDV values.
Variability in diagnostic duplex criteria across vascular
laboratories and ultrasound machines has been pointed out by
others.13 15 Kuntz et al13
compared 2 vascular laboratories in their ability to detect an ICA
stenosis of 70% using various duplex-derived
hemodynamic parameters and ratios. They
found practically no differences in AUC, but the optimal threshold
value for each parameter or ratio was different for each
laboratory (eg, the PSVICA threshold for one
laboratory was 229 cm/s and for the other 340 cm/s). However, they
optimized the thresholds both by maximizing accuracy and by minimizing
the 2-year risk of stroke in case duplex would be used as the sole
preoperative test for carotid disease. This approach led to different
tradeoffs in sensitivity and specificity for each laboratory, which by
itself can be a reason for different optimal thresholds for each
laboratory (eg, for PSVICA, sensitivity and
specificity for one laboratory were 95.0 and 82.5, respectively; for
the other laboratory, the values were 89.5 and 93.2, respectively).
Their main explanation for the disparity between laboratories was the
differences in ultrasound machines used. In contrast, Alexandrov et
al15 compared the optimal threshold values of 2
laboratories that used similar equipment. They found major differences
in sensitivity and specificity when the PSVICA
threshold of one laboratory was applied in the other laboratory instead
of this laboratory using its own previously validated criterion.
Because the ultrasound machines were similar, their explanation for the
difference in diagnostic duplex criteria was the difference
in the technologists' technique.
Grading of carotid stenosis is essential for determining the
risk of stroke and subsequent patient treatment. Changes over time in
duplex criteria for detecting a 70% ICA stenosis constitute
a profound problem, particularly for those centers that select patients
for carotid endarterectomy with duplex alone.
Because duplex performance is operator and ultrasound machine
dependent, neither should be changed after acceptable duplex accuracy
and validation of duplex criteria are achieved. Before duplex criteria
are validated, it should be ascertained that the operators are
experienced and expect to be working for a long period of time in the
vascular laboratory. In addition, proposed adjustments of the validated
ultrasound machines by the manufacturer should be evaluated carefully
before they are implicated.
Our study demonstrated that duplex criteria may change over time. However, we did not analyze the possible causes. Therefore, it is difficult to indicate a time interval or event after which duplex criteria should be validated again. Nevertheless, in our case the optimal duplex threshold changed significantly after a time interval of 2.5 years, during which operators and the ultrasound machine gradually changed. We recommend that individual vascular laboratories continuously compare their duplex results with the results of other correlating methods, such as IA-DSA, MR angiography, and CT angiography, either performed in their center or in another center, to assess duplex accuracy. Furthermore, patients should be referred for IA-DSA when the duplex result of the symptomatic ICA is inconclusive, thus providing a gold standard for duplex results of both ICAs.
Received April 3, 1998; revision received August 3, 1998; accepted August 12, 1998.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
1. 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]
2. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial: interim results for symptomatic patients with severe (70–99%) or with mild (0–29%) carotid stenosis. Lancet. 1991;337:1235–1243.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
3.
Chaturvedi S, Policherla PN, Femino L. Cerebral
angiography practices at US teaching hospitals. Stroke. 1997;28:1895–1897.
4.
Carpenter JP, Lexa FJ, Davis JT. Determination of
duplex Doppler ultrasound criteria appropriate to the North
American Symptomatic Carotid
Endarterectomy Trial. Stroke. 1996;27:695–699.
5. 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]
6. Moneta GL, Edwards JM, Chitwood RW, Taylor LMJ, 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;17:152–157.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7.
Hunink MG, Polak JF, Barlan MM, O'Leary DH. Detection
and quantification of carotid artery stenosis: efficacy of
various Doppler velocity parameters. AJR Am
J Roentgenol. 1993;160:619–625.
8. Srinivasan J, Mayberg MR, Weiss DG, Eskridge J. Duplex accuracy compared with angiography in the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Trial for Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis. Neurosurgery. 1995;36:648–653.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
9. Ballard JL, Fleig K, De Lange M, Killeen JD. The diagnostic accuracy of duplex ultrasonography for evaluating carotid bifurcation. Am J Surg. 1994;168:123–126.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
10.
Robinson ML, Sacks D, Perlmutter GS, Marinelli DL.
Diagnostic criteria for carotid duplex sonography.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988;151:1045–1049.
11.
Chang YJ, Golby AJ, Albers GW. Detection of carotid
stenosis: from NASCET results to clinical practice.
Stroke. 1995;26:1325–1328.
12.
Alexandrov AV, Brodie DS, McLean A, Hamilton P, Murphy
J, Burns PN. Correlation of peak systolic velocity and
angiographic measurement of carotid stenosis revisited.
Stroke. 1997;28:339–342.
13.
Kuntz KM, Polak JF, Whittemore AD, Skillman JJ, Kent
KC. Duplex ultrasound criteria for the identification of carotid
stenosis should be laboratory specific. Stroke. 1997;28:597–602.
14.
Howard G, Baker WH, Chambless LE, Howard VJ, Jones AM,
Toole JF, for the Asymptomatic Carotid
Atherosclerosis Study Investigators. An approach for
the use of Doppler ultrasound as a screening tool for
hemodynamically significant stenosis (despite
heterogeneity of Doppler performance): a
multicenter experience. Stroke. 1996;27:1951–1957.
15.
Alexandrov AV, Vital D, Brodie DS, Hamilton P, Grotta
JC. Grading carotid stenosis with ultrasound: an
interlaboratory comparison. Stroke. 1997;28:1208–1210.
16. van Leersum M, van Leeuwen MS, van der Schouw Y, Mali WPTM. Duplex threshold values for identification of carotid stenosis greater than 70. Radiology. 1994;193:298. Abstract.
17.
Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area
under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
Radiology. 1982;143:29–36.
18.
Wilterdink JL, Feldmann E, Easton JD, Ward R.
Performance of carotid ultrasound in evaluating candidates for
carotid endarterectomy is optimized by an approach
based on clinical outcome rather than accuracy. Stroke. 1996;27:1094–1098.
19.
Hankey GJ, Warlow CP, Sellar RJ. Cerebral
angiographic risk in mild cerebrovascular disease. Stroke. 1990;21:209–222.
20.
Davies KN, Humphrey PR. Complications of cerebral
angiography in patients with symptomatic carotid territory
ischaemia screened by carotid ultrasound. J Neurol Neurosurg
Psychiatry. 1993;56:967–972.
21. Nelson TR, Pretorius DH. Device for the calibration of flow-velocity-measuring Doppler ultrasound equipment. J Ultrasound Med. 1990;9:575–581.[Abstract]
22.
Kimme-Smith C, Hussain R, Duerinckx A, Tessler F, Grant
E. Assurance of consistent peak-velocity measurements with a
variety of duplex Doppler instruments. Radiology. 1990;177:265–272.
23. Tessler FN, Kimme-Smith C, Sutherland ML, Schiller VL, Perrella RR, Grant EG. Inter- and intra-observer variability of Doppler peak velocity measurements: an in-vitro study. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1990;16:653–657.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
24. Daigle RJ, Stavros AT, Lee RM. Overestimation of velocity and frequency values by multielement linear array Dopplers. J Vasc Technol. 1990;14:206–213.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  B. M.B. Goessens, F. L.J. Visseren, L. J. Kappelle, A. Algra, Y. van der Graaf, and for the SMART Study Group Asymptomatic Carotid Artery Stenosis and the Risk of New Vascular Events in Patients With Manifest Arterial Disease: The SMART Study Stroke, May 1, 2007; 38(5): 1470 - 1475. [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. F. van Raamt, A. P. A. Appelman, W. P. T. M. Mali, Y. van der Graaf, and For the SMART Study Group Arterial Blood Flow to the Brain in Patients with Vascular Disease: The SMART Study. Radiology, August 1, 2006; 240(2): 515 - 521. [Abstract] [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. M. Dijk, A. Algra, Y. van der Graaf, D. E. Grobbee, M. L. Bots, and on behalf of the SMART study group Carotid stiffness and the risk of new vascular events in patients with manifest cardiovascular disease. The SMART study Eur. Heart J., June 2, 2005; 26(12): 1213 - 1220. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Hendrikse, A. F. van Raamt, Y. van der Graaf, W. P. T. M. Mali, and J. van der Grond Distribution of Cerebral Blood Flow in the Circle of Willis Radiology, April 1, 2005; 235(1): 184 - 189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Buskens, P. J. Nederkoorn, T. Buijs-van der Woude, W. P. T. M. Mali, L. J. Kappelle, B. C. Eikelboom, Y. van der Graaf, and M. G. Myriam Hunink Imaging of Carotid Arteries in Symptomatic Patients: Cost-effectiveness of Diagnostic Strategies Radiology, October 1, 2004; 233(1): 101 - 112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Dijk, Y. van der Graaf, D. E. Grobbee, M. L. Bots, and on behalf of the SMART Study Group Carotid Stiffness Indicates Risk of Ischemic Stroke and TIA in Patients With Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis: The SMART Study Stroke, October 1, 2004; 35(10): 2258 - 2262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Sabeti, M. Schillinger, W. Mlekusch, A. Willfort, M. Haumer, T. Nachtmann, M. Mullner, W. Lang, R. Ahmadi, and E. Minar Quantification of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis with Duplex US: Comparative Analysis of Different Flow Velocity Criteria Radiology, August 1, 2004; 232(2): 431 - 439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. H. Wierks and N. Labropoulos Noninvasive Carotid Imaging Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, June 1, 2004; 16(2): 89 - 99. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. J. Nederkoorn, Y. van der Graaf, B. C. Eikelboom, A. van der Lugt, L. W. Bartels, and W. P.T.M. Mali Time-of-Flight MR Angiography of Carotid Artery Stenosis: Does a Flow Void Represent Severe Stenosis? AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., November 1, 2002; 23(10): 1779 - 1784. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. J. Nederkoorn, W. P.Th.M. Mali, B. C. Eikelboom, O. E.H. Elgersma, E. Buskens, M.G. M. Hunink, L. J. Kappelle, P. C. Buijs, A. F.J. Wust, A. van der Lugt, et al. Preoperative Diagnosis of Carotid Artery Stenosis: Accuracy of Noninvasive Testing Stroke, August 1, 2002; 33(8): 2003 - 2008. [Abstract] [Full Text] [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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. C.C. Johnston and L. B. Goldstein Clinical carotid endarterectomy decision making: Noninvasive vascular imaging versus angiography Neurology, April 24, 2001; 56(8): 1009 - 1015. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K J van Everdingen, L J Kappelle, C J M Klijn, W P T M Mali, and J van der Grond Clinical features associated with internal carotid artery occlusion do not correlate with MRA cerebropetal flow measurements J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, March 1, 2001; 70(3): 333 - 339. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||