Published Online
on December 2, 2002

A more recent version of this article appeared on December 1, 2002

This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 33/12/2834    most recent 01.STR.0000043632.51378.24v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted 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 Johnston, D. C.C. Articles by Goldstein, L. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Johnston, D. C.C. Articles by Goldstein, L. B. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Carotid Artery Disease Related Collections Carotid Stenosis Computerized tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Submitted on June 19, 2002
Accepted on July 22, 2002

Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography of Carotid Arteries. Utility in Routine Clinical Practice

Dean C.C. Johnston MD, MHSc^*; James D. Eastwood MD; Thanh Nguyen MD; and Larry B. Goldstein MD

From the Department of Medicine (Neurology), University of British Columbia, Center for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (D.C.C.J.); Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center (J.D.E., T.N.), and Department of Medicine (Neurology), Duke Center for Cerebrovascular Disease, Center for Clinical Health Policy Research (L.B.G.), Durham, NC; and Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC (L.B.G.).

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: dccj{at}interchange.ubc.ca.

Background and Purpose—Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CEMRA) is among the newer noninvasive tests used for the evaluation of patients with carotid artery disease. Evidence supporting its utility in routine clinical practice is lacking.

Methods—The results of CEMRA were compared with those of catheter angiography in 50 consecutive patients being evaluated for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) at a community hospital. Using indications for CEA based on published guidelines, we determined the rate of misclassification for surgery, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. In addition, the interrater agreement ( score) of CEMRA was compared with that of catheter angiography in the studied population and with interpretations provided by 2 blinded radiologists.

Results—Compared with catheter angiography, 24% (95% CI, 12% to 36%) of patients would have been misclassified for CEA on the basis of CEMRA results alone. CEMRA was associated with sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 62%, positive predictive value of 78%, and negative predictive value of 89%. When both CEMRA and duplex Doppler ultrasound were performed and the results were concordant, the misclassification rate decreased to 17% (95% CI, 2% to 32%). scores were similar for CEMRA and catheter angiography (0.72 and 0.75, respectively).

Conclusions—CEMRA was found to be highly sensitive for detection of surgically amenable carotid stenosis. scores for the interpretation of CEMRA and catheter angiography were similar. However, clinicians should be cautious when using CEMRA alone for surgical decision making in CEA candidates because a significant number of patients may be misclassified. The rate of misclassification is reduced when the results of CEMRA and duplex Doppler ultrasound are concordant.

Key words: carotid stenosis • diagnosis • evaluation studies • magnetic resonance angiography

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. R Jaff, G. V Goldmakher, M. H Lev, and J. M Romero Imaging of the carotid arteries: the role of duplex ultrasonography, magnetic resonance arteriography, and computerized tomographic arteriography Vascular Medicine, November 1, 2008; 13(4): 281 - 292. [Abstract] [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]

				N. Anzalone, F. Scomazzoni, R. Castellano, L. Strada, C. Righi, L. S. Politi, M. A. Kirchin, R. Chiesa, and G. Scotti Carotid Artery Stenosis: Intraindividual Correlations of 3D Time-of-Flight MR Angiography, Contrast-enhanced MR Angiography, Conventional DSA, and Rotational Angiography for Detection and Grading Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 204 - 213. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. J. Alberts, R. E. Latchaw, W. R. Selman, T. Shephard, M. N. Hadley, L. M. Brass, W. Koroshetz, J. R. Marler, J. Booss, R. D. Zorowitz, et al. Recommendations for Comprehensive Stroke Centers: A Consensus Statement From the Brain Attack Coalition Stroke, July 1, 2005; 36(7): 1597 - 1616. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Warmuth, M. Ruping, A. Forschler, H.-C. Koennecke, J. M. Valdueza, A. Kauert, S. J. Schreiber, R. Siekmann, and C. Zimmer Dynamic Spin Labeling Angiography in Extracranial Carotid Artery Stenosis AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., May 1, 2005; 26(5): 1035 - 1043. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. E. Hyde, A. J. Fox, I. Gulka, P. Kalapos, D. H. Lee, D. M. Pelz, and D. W. Holdsworth Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis Measurement: Comparison of 3D Computed Rotational Angiography and Conventional Digital Subtraction Angiography Stroke, December 1, 2004; 35(12): 2776 - 2781. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. C. Wang, D. Saloner, and J. H. Rapp Characteristics of Carotid Plaque as Risk Factors for Stroke Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, September 1, 2004; 16(3): 193 - 199. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. K. DeMarco, J. Huston III, and M. A. Bernstein Evaluation of Classic 2D Time-of-Flight MR Angiography in the Depiction of Severe Carotid Stenosis Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2004; 183(3): 787 - 793. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. M. U-King-Im, R. A. Trivedi, M. J. Graves, N. J. Higgins, J. J. Cross, B. D. Tom, W. Hollingworth, H. Eales, E. A. Warburton, P. J. Kirkpatrick, et al. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography for carotid disease: Diagnostic and potential clinical impact Neurology, April 27, 2004; 62(8): 1282 - 1290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. W. Norris and A. Halliday Is Ultrasound Sufficient for Vascular Imaging Prior to Carotid Endarterectomy? Stroke, February 1, 2004; 35(2): 370 - 371. [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]

				P. M. Rothwell For Severe Carotid Stenosis Found on Ultrasound, Further Arterial Evaluation Prior to Carotid Endarterectomy Is Unnecessary: The Argument Against Stroke, July 1, 2003; 34(7): 1817 - 1819. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. U-King-Im, R. Trivedi, J. H. Gillard, D. C.C. Johnston, J. D. Eastwood, and L. B. Goldstein Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Angiography Carotid Arteries * Response Stroke, May 1, 2003; 34 (5): e15 - e15. [Full Text] [PDF]