Staikov I N, Arnold M, Mattle H P, Remonda L, Sturzenegger M, Baumgartner R W, Schroth G
Department of Neurology, Inselspital, Bern, Switzerland.
J Neurol. 2000 Sep;247(9):681-6. doi: 10.1007/s004150070110.
We compared three angiographic methods for grading of carotid stenosis and examined the correlation between angiographic and ultrasound findings. Two observers independently measured 111 carotid stenoses on arteriographic films of 84 patients. The stenoses were graded according to the European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST), North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET), and Common Carotid (CC) methods. The results obtained by these methods were compared, and the interobserver reproducibility of the measurements was calculated. In addition, all angiographic results were compared to ultrasound findings obtained before angiography. Measurements using the CC method were the most reproducible and those using the NASCET method the least. The NASCET method underestimated the degree of stenosis compared to the other methods. The ECST and CC methods yielded almost identical results (97% agreement). Ultrasound provided an accuracy of 94% compared to ECST and CC methods and 84% compared to the NASCET method. Interobserver reproducibility of angiographic quantification of carotid stenoses was best for the CC and ECST methods and least for the NASCET method. Ultrasound demonstrated better accuracy than the ECST and CC methods.
我们比较了三种用于颈动脉狭窄分级的血管造影方法,并研究了血管造影结果与超声检查结果之间的相关性。两位观察者独立测量了84例患者动脉造影胶片上的111处颈动脉狭窄。这些狭窄按照欧洲颈动脉外科试验(ECST)、北美症状性颈动脉内膜切除术试验(NASCET)和颈总动脉(CC)方法进行分级。比较了这些方法所得到的结果,并计算了测量结果在观察者之间的可重复性。此外,将所有血管造影结果与血管造影前获得的超声检查结果进行比较。使用CC方法的测量结果可重复性最高,而使用NASCET方法的可重复性最低。与其他方法相比,NASCET方法低估了狭窄程度。ECST和CC方法得出的结果几乎相同(一致性为97%)。与ECST和CC方法相比,超声检查的准确率为94%,与NASCET方法相比为84%。颈动脉狭窄血管造影定量在观察者之间的可重复性,CC和ECST方法最佳,NASCET方法最差。超声检查显示出比ECST和CC方法更高的准确率。