Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 1998 May;12(3):236-43.
doi: 10.1007/s100169900146.

Determination of 60% or greater carotid stenosis: a prospective comparison of magnetic resonance angiography and duplex ultrasound with conventional angiography

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Determination of 60% or greater carotid stenosis: a prospective comparison of magnetic resonance angiography and duplex ultrasound with conventional angiography

M R Jackson et al. Ann Vasc Surg. 1998 May.

Abstract

The morbidity and cost of conventional angiography (CA) have focused recent efforts in cerebrovascular imaging upon the exclusive use of noninvasive techniques. Our purpose was to prospectively evaluate carotid magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and to compare its accuracy with color-flow duplex (CFD). Fifty patients were prospectively evaluated with CA and MRA after clinical and CFD findings indicated the need for carotid angiography. CFD measurements of peak systolic velocity (PSV) and end-diastolic velocity (EDV) were made. MRA results were categorized as 0%-39%, 40%-59%, 60%-79%, or 80%-99% stenosis or occluded. Determination of percent carotid stenosis by CA was made as in the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, the probability of correctly predicting a > or =60% stenosis using various CFD thresholds and MRA was assessed. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) in determining > or =60% stenosis were estimated. For MRA the sensitivity was 85% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 69%-94%), specificity 70% (CI = 56%-81 %), PPV 68% (CI = 53%-80%), and NPV 86% (CI = 72%-94%). For CFD the sensitivity was 89% (CI = 74%-96%), specificity 93% (CI = 82%-98%), PPV 89% (CI = 74%-96%), and NPV 93% (CI = 82%-98%). When MRA and CFD results were concordant (n = 64), the sensitivity was 100% (CI = 89%-100%), specificity 95% (CI = 81%-99%), PPV 94% (CI = 77%-99%), and the NPV was 100% (CI = 92%-100%). The area under the ROC curve for CFD was 95%, compared to 83% for MRA (p = 0.0005). We conclude that the low specificity of MRA precludes its use as the definitive imaging modality for carotid stenosis. The 93% specificity of CFD alone warrants its consideration as a definitive carotid imaging study. By ROC curve analysis, CFD offers superior accuracy to MRA. Our data support noninvasive preoperative carotid imaging for detecting a threshold stenosis of > or =60% whether CFD is used alone, or in combination with the selective use of MRA.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources