on April 10, 2003
Published online before print April 10, 2003, doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000068367.08991.A2
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Submitted on November 3, 2002
From the Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands (P.J.N., Y.v.d.G.), and Program for the Assessment of Radiologic Technology, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics and Department of Radiology, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Mass (M.G.M.H.). * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Hunink{at}epib.fgg.eur.nl.
Background and Purpose--The purpose of this work was to review and compare published data on the diagnostic value of duplex ultrasonography (DUS), MR angiography (MRA), and conventional digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for the diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis. Methods--We performed a systematic review of published studies retrieved through PUBMED, from bibliographies of review papers, and from experts. The English-language medical literature was searched for studies that met the selection criteria: (1) The study was published between 1994 and 2001; (2) MRA and/or DUS was performed to estimate the severity of carotid artery stenosis; (3) DSA was used as the standard of reference; and (4) the absolute numbers of true positives, false negatives, true negatives, and false positives were available or derivable for at least one definition of disease (degree of stenosis). Results--Sixty-three publications on duplex, MRA, or both were included in the analysis, yielding the test results of 64 different patient series on DUS and 21 on MRA. For the diagnosis of 70% to 99% versus <70% stenosis, MRA had a pooled sensitivity of 95% (95% CI, 92 to 97) and a pooled specificity of 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93). These numbers were 86% (95% CI, 84 to 89) and 87% (95% CI, 84 to 90) for DUS, respectively. For recognizing occlusion, MRA yielded a sensitivity of 98% (95% CI, 94 to 100) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 99 to 100), and DUS had a sensitivity of 96% (95% CI, 94 to 98) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 99 to 100). A multivariable summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis for diagnosing 70% to 99% stenosis demonstrated that the type of MR scanner predicted the performance of MRA, whereas the presence of verification bias predicted the performance of DUS. For diagnosing occlusion, no significant heterogeneity was found for MRA; for DUS, the presence of verification bias and type of DUS scanner were explanatory variables. MRA had a significantly better discriminatory power than DUS in diagnosing 70% to 99% stenosis (regression coefficient, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.37 to 2.77). No significant difference was found in detecting occlusion (regression coefficient, 0.73; 95% CI, -2.06 to 3.51). Conclusions--These results suggest that MRA has a better discriminatory power compared with DUS in diagnosing 70% to 99% stenosis and is a sensitive and specific test compared with DSA in the evaluation of carotid artery stenosis. For detecting occlusion, both DUS and MRA are very accurate.
Accepted on November 27, 2002
Duplex Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance Angiography Compared With Digital Subtraction Angiography in Carotid Artery Stenosis. A Systematic Review
Paul J. Nederkoorn MD, PhD;
Key words: carotid stenosis • magnetic resonance angiography • meta-analysis • ultrasonography, Doppler, duplex
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  L.R. Arends, T.H. Hamza, J.C. van Houwelingen, M.H. Heijenbrok-Kal, M.G.M. Hunink, and T. Stijnen Bivariate Random Effects Meta-Analysis of ROC Curves Med Decis Making, September 1, 2008; 28(5): 621 - 638. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. H. Hamza, J. B. Reitsma, and T. Stijnen Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Studies: A Comparison of Random Intercept, Normal-Normal, and Binomial-Normal Bivariate Summary ROC Approaches Med Decis Making, September 1, 2008; 28(5): 639 - 649. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. M. Debrey, H. Yu, J. K. Lynch, K.-O. Lovblad, V. L. Wright, S.-J. D. Janket, and A. E. Baird Diagnostic Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Angiography for Internal Carotid Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Stroke, August 1, 2008; 39(8): 2237 - 2248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Saam, H. R. Underhill, B. Chu, N. Takaya, J. Cai, N. L. Polissar, C. Yuan, and T. S. Hatsukami Prevalence of American Heart Association type VI carotid atherosclerotic lesions identified by magnetic resonance imaging for different levels of stenosis as measured by duplex ultrasound. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., March 11, 2008; 51(10): 1014 - 1021. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening for Carotid Artery Stenosis: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement Ann Intern Med, December 18, 2007; 147(12): 854 - 859. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Wolff, J. Guirguis-Blake, T. Miller, M. Gillespie, and R. Harris Screening for Carotid Artery Stenosis: An Update of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Ann Intern Med, December 18, 2007; 147(12): 860 - 870. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. J. Alexander, J. Moawad, and D. Super Outcome Analysis of Carotid Artery Occlusion Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, November 1, 2007; 41(5): 409 - 416. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S Khan, G C Cloud, S Kerry, and H S Markus Imaging of vertebral artery stenosis: a systematic review J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, November 1, 2007; 78(11): 1218 - 1225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. Seidenwurm, P. Turski, J. Barr, J. Connors, M. Lev, S. Mukherji, and E. Russell Performance Measures in Neuroradiology AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., September 1, 2007; 28(8): 1435 - 1438. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. Saam, T. S. Hatsukami, N. Takaya, B. Chu, H. Underhill, W. S. Kerwin, J. Cai, M. S. Ferguson, and C. Yuan The Vulnerable, or High-Risk, Atherosclerotic Plaque: Noninvasive MR Imaging for Characterization and Assessment Radiology, July 1, 2007; 244(1): 64 - 77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Lell, C. Fellner, U. Baum, T. Hothorn, R. Steiner, W. Lang, W. Bautz, and F.A. Fellner Evaluation of Carotid Artery Stenosis with Multisection CT and MR Imaging: Influence of Imaging Modality and Postprocessing AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., January 1, 2007; 28(1): 104 - 110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. W.S. Rutjes, J. B. Reitsma, M. Di Nisio, N. Smidt, J. C. van Rijn, and P. M.M. Bossuyt Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. Can. Med. Assoc. J., February 14, 2006; 174(4): 469 - 476. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Mutze, G. Rademacher, G. Matthes, N. Hosten, and D. Stengel Blunt Cerebrovascular Injury in Patients with Blunt Multiple Trauma: Diagnostic Accuracy of Duplex Doppler US and Early CT Angiography Radiology, December 1, 2005; 237(3): 884 - 892. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Ota, K. Takase, H. Rikimaru, M. Tsuboi, T. Yamada, A. Sato, S. Higano, T. Ishibashi, and S. Takahashi Quantitative Vascular Measurements in Arterial Occlusive Disease RadioGraphics, September 1, 2005; 25(5): 1141 - 1158. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J.W. Koelemay, P. J. Nederkoorn, J. B. Reitsma, and C. B. Majoie Systematic Review of Computed Tomographic Angiography for Assessment of Carotid Artery Disease Stroke, October 1, 2004; 35(10): 2306 - 2312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. A. Bittl and A. T. Hirsch Concomitant Peripheral Arterial Disease and Coronary Artery Disease: Therapeutic Opportunities Circulation, June 29, 2004; 109(25): 3136 - 3144. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Rigatelli, P. J. Nederkoorn, W. P.T.M. Mali, L. J. Kappelle, and Y. van der Graaf Diagnosis of Carotid Artery Occlusive Disease in Patients Scheduled for Cardiac or Vascular Surgery: Is This a Place for Invasive Selective Carotid Angiography? * Response: Combined Testing of Cardiac and Carotid Artery Stenosis? Stroke, May 1, 2004; 35(5): e89 - e90. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. P. Derdeyn Catheter Angiography Is Still Necessary for the Measurement of Carotid Stenosis AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., October 1, 2003; 24(9): 1737 - 1738. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|