Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Magnetic resonance angiography, digital subtraction angiography and Doppler ultrasonography in detection of carotid artery stenosis: a comparison with findings from histological specimens

D Netuka, S Ostry, T Belsan, D Rucka, V Mandys, F Charvat, O Bradac, V Benes

. 2010 ; 152 (7) : 1215-1221.

Language English Country Austria

Document type Comparative Study, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Grant support
NR9435 MZ0 CEP Register

BACKGROUND: Patients' life expectancy, clinical symptomatology and the extent of carotid stenosis are the most important factors when deciding whether to perform carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid stenosis. Therefore, the accuracy of measuring carotid stenosis is of utmost importance. METHODS: Patients with internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis were investigated by digital subtraction angiography (DSA), Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). Atherosclerotic plaque specimens were transversally cut into smaller segments and histologically processed. The slides were scanned and specimens showing maximal stenosis were determined; the minimal diameter and the diameter of the whole plaque were measured. DSA, DUS and MRA measurements were obtained in 103 patients. A comparison between preoperative and histological findings was performed. In addition, correlation coefficients were computed and tested. RESULTS: Results show a significant correlation for each of the diagnostic procedures. Mean differences in the whole cohort between preoperative measurements and the histological measurements are as follows: angiographic measurement of carotid stenosis underestimated histological measurement by 14.5% and MRA by 0.7%, but DUS overestimated by 6.6%. The results in severe stenosis (> or =70%) are as follows: angiographic measurement underestimated the histological measurements by 2.3%, but MRA overestimated by 12.1% and DUS by 11.3%. The results in moderate stenosis (50-69%): angiographic measurement underestimated the histological measurements by 12.3%, but MRA overestimated by 0.2% and DUS by 7.2%. The results in mild stenosis (30-49%): angiographic measurement underestimated the histological measurements by 24.7% and MRA by 7.6%, but DUS overestimated by 3.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that DSA underestimates moderate and mild ICA stenosis. DUS slightly overestimated moderate ICA stenosis and highly overestimated high-grade ICA stenosis. MRA proved to be accurate in detecting moderate ICA stenosis, but slightly underestimated mild stenosis and overestimated high-grade stenosis. The surgeon should be aware of these discrepancies when deciding whether to perform CEA in patients with ICA stenosis.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc14055591
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20140430124709.0
007      
ta
008      
140408s2010 au a f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s00701-010-0645-2 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)20411283
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a au
100    1_
$a Netuka, David $7 xx0061783 $u Department of Neurosurgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Central Military Hospital, U Vojenske Nemocnice 1200, 169 02, Prague 6, Czech Republic
245    10
$a Magnetic resonance angiography, digital subtraction angiography and Doppler ultrasonography in detection of carotid artery stenosis: a comparison with findings from histological specimens / $c D Netuka, S Ostry, T Belsan, D Rucka, V Mandys, F Charvat, O Bradac, V Benes
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Patients' life expectancy, clinical symptomatology and the extent of carotid stenosis are the most important factors when deciding whether to perform carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients with carotid stenosis. Therefore, the accuracy of measuring carotid stenosis is of utmost importance. METHODS: Patients with internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis were investigated by digital subtraction angiography (DSA), Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). Atherosclerotic plaque specimens were transversally cut into smaller segments and histologically processed. The slides were scanned and specimens showing maximal stenosis were determined; the minimal diameter and the diameter of the whole plaque were measured. DSA, DUS and MRA measurements were obtained in 103 patients. A comparison between preoperative and histological findings was performed. In addition, correlation coefficients were computed and tested. RESULTS: Results show a significant correlation for each of the diagnostic procedures. Mean differences in the whole cohort between preoperative measurements and the histological measurements are as follows: angiographic measurement of carotid stenosis underestimated histological measurement by 14.5% and MRA by 0.7%, but DUS overestimated by 6.6%. The results in severe stenosis (> or =70%) are as follows: angiographic measurement underestimated the histological measurements by 2.3%, but MRA overestimated by 12.1% and DUS by 11.3%. The results in moderate stenosis (50-69%): angiographic measurement underestimated the histological measurements by 12.3%, but MRA overestimated by 0.2% and DUS by 7.2%. The results in mild stenosis (30-49%): angiographic measurement underestimated the histological measurements by 24.7% and MRA by 7.6%, but DUS overestimated by 3.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirms that DSA underestimates moderate and mild ICA stenosis. DUS slightly overestimated moderate ICA stenosis and highly overestimated high-grade ICA stenosis. MRA proved to be accurate in detecting moderate ICA stenosis, but slightly underestimated mild stenosis and overestimated high-grade stenosis. The surgeon should be aware of these discrepancies when deciding whether to perform CEA in patients with ICA stenosis.
590    __
$a bohemika - dle Pubmed
650    02
$a digitální subtrakční angiografie $x metody $x normy $7 D015901
650    12
$a arteriae carotides $x patologie $x radiografie $x ultrasonografie $7 D002339
650    02
$a stenóza arteria carotis $x diagnóza $x patologie $x ultrasonografie $7 D016893
650    02
$a kohortové studie $7 D015331
650    02
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    02
$a magnetická rezonanční angiografie $x metody $x normy $7 D018810
650    02
$a prediktivní hodnota testů $7 D011237
650    02
$a předoperační péče $x metody $7 D011300
650    02
$a ultrasonografie dopplerovská $x metody $x normy $7 D018608
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Ostrý, Svatopluk $u Department of Neurosurgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Central Military Hospital, U Vojenske Nemocnice 1200, 169 02, Prague 6, Czech Republic $7 xx0061773
700    1_
$a Belšan, Tomáš $7 xx0077683 $u Radiodiagnostic Unit, Central Military Hospital, U vojenské nemocnice 1200, 169 02, Prague 6, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Ručka, David $7 xx0104776 $u Department of intemal medicine, 1st Faculty of Medicine, Central Military Hospital, U vojenské nemocnice 1200, 169 02, Prague 6, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Mandys, Václav, $d 1951- $7 jn20000401720 $u Intitute of Pathology, 3rd Faculty of Medicine, Charles University and University Hospital Královské Vinohrady, Šrobárova 50, 100 34 Prague 10, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Charvát, František, $d 1963- $7 jn20010602633 $u Radiodiagnostic Unit, Central Military Hospital, U vojenské nemocnice 1200, 169 02, Prague 6, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Bradáč, Ondřej $7 xx0121581 $u Department of Neurosurgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Central Military Hospital, U Vojenske Nemocnice 1200, 169 02, Prague 6, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Beneš, Vladimír, $d 1953- $7 jn20000400135 $u Department of Neurosurgery, First Faculty of Medicine, Central Military Hospital, U Vojenske Nemocnice 1200, 169 02, Prague 6, Czech Republic
773    0_
$t Acta Neurochirurgica $g Roč. 152, č. 7 (2010), s. 1215-1221 $p Acta Neurochir (Wien) $x 0001-6268 $w MED00009022
773    0_
$p Acta Neurochir (Wien) $g 152(7):1215-21, 2010 Jul
910    __
$a ABA008 $y 4 $z 0
990    __
$a 20140408143734 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20140430124826 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1019108 $s 854178
BAS    __
$a 3
BMC    __
$a 2010 $b 152 $c 7 $d 1215-1221 $x MED00009022 $i 0001-6268 $m Acta neurochirurgica $n Acta Neurochir
GRA    __
$a NR9435 $p MZ0
LZP    __
$a 2014-04/gvbo

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...