Back to Search
Start Over
Overestimation of moderate carotid stenosis assessed by both Doppler US and contrast enhanced 3D-MR angiography in the CARMEDAS study
- Source :
- Journal de Neuroradiologie / Journal of Neuroradiology, Journal de Neuroradiologie / Journal of Neuroradiology, 2011, 38 (3), pp.148-55. ⟨10.1016/j.neurad.2010.05.002⟩, Journal de Neuroradiologie / Journal of Neuroradiology, Elsevier Masson, 2011, 38 (3), pp.148-55. ⟨10.1016/j.neurad.2010.05.002⟩
- Publication Year :
- 2011
- Publisher :
- HAL CCSD, 2011.
-
Abstract
- International audience; PURPOSE: To evaluate the agreement and diagnostic accuracy of Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA), Doppler ultrasound (DUS) and Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in the assessment of carotid stenosis. METHODS: DUS, CE-MRA and DSA were performed in 56 patients included in the Carotide-angiographie par résonance magnétique-échographie-doppler-angioscanner (CARMEDAS) multicenter study with a carotid stenosis ≥ 50%. Three readers evaluated stenoses on CE-MRA and DSA (NASCET criteria). Velocities criteria were used for stenosis estimation on DUS. RESULTS: CE-MRA had a sensitivity and specificity of 96-98% and 66-83% respectively for carotid stenoses ≥ 50% and a sensitivity and specificity of 94% and 76-84% respectively for carotid stenoses ≥ 70%. The interobserver agreement of CE-MRA was excellent, except for moderate stenoses (50-69%). DUS had a sensitivity and specificity of 88 and 75% respectively for carotid stenoses ≥ 50% and a sensitivity and specificity of 83 and 86% respectively for carotid stenoses ≥ 70%. Combined concordant CE-MRA and DUS had a sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 85-90% respectively for carotid stenoses ≥ 50% and a sensitivity and specificity of 96-100% and 80-87% respectively for carotid stenoses ≥ 70%. The positive predictive value of the association CE-MRA and DUS for carotid stenoses ≥ 70% is calculated between 77 and 82% while the negative predictive value is calculated between 97 and 100%. CE-MRA and DUS have concordant findings in 63-72%, and the overestimations cases were recorded only for carotid stenosis ≤ 69%. CONCLUSION: Combined DUS-CE-MRA is excellent for evaluation of severe stenosis but remains debatable in moderate stenosis (50-69%) due to the risk of overestimations.
- Subjects :
- Male
Contrast Media
MESH: Magnetic Resonance Angiography
Magnetic resonance angiography
030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging
0302 clinical medicine
MESH: Aged, 80 and over
MESH: Carotid Stenosis
Contrast (vision)
Carotid Stenosis
media_common
Aged, 80 and over
MESH: Aged
MESH: Middle Aged
Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
medicine.diagnostic_test
Middle Aged
MESH: Predictive Value of Tests
Predictive value of tests
cardiovascular system
Female
Radiology
medicine.medical_specialty
media_common.quotation_subject
MESH: Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Sensitivity and Specificity
03 medical and health sciences
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Predictive Value of Tests
MESH: Contrast Media
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
medicine
Humans
Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging
cardiovascular diseases
Aged
MESH: Humans
business.industry
Mr angiography
Ultrasonography, Doppler
Digital subtraction angiography
medicine.disease
MESH: Sensitivity and Specificity
MESH: Male
Stenosis
Angiography
MESH: Ultrasonography, Doppler
Neurology (clinical)
Doppler ultrasound
business
MESH: Female
MESH: Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted
Magnetic Resonance Angiography
030217 neurology & neurosurgery
[SDV.MHEP]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Human health and pathology
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 01509861
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- Journal de Neuroradiologie / Journal of Neuroradiology, Journal de Neuroradiologie / Journal of Neuroradiology, 2011, 38 (3), pp.148-55. ⟨10.1016/j.neurad.2010.05.002⟩, Journal de Neuroradiologie / Journal of Neuroradiology, Elsevier Masson, 2011, 38 (3), pp.148-55. ⟨10.1016/j.neurad.2010.05.002⟩
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....4b7b8bb30995825e9ed85fddcb5f3109
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neurad.2010.05.002⟩