U-King-Im Jean Marie, Graves Martin J, Cross Justin J, Higgins Nicholas J, Wat Josephine, Trivedi Rikin A, Tang Tjun, Howarth Simon P S, Kirkpatrick Peter J, Antoun Nagui M, Gillard Jonathan H
University Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Box 219, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, England.
Radiology. 2007 Jul;244(1):213-22. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2441060749. Epub 2007 May 16.
To prospectively determine, for both digital subtraction angiography (DSA) and contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography, the accuracy of subjective visual impression (SVI) in the evaluation of internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis, with objective caliper measurements serving as the reference standard.
Local ethics committee approval and written informed patient consent were obtained. A total of 142 symptomatic patients (41 women, 101 men; mean age, 70 years; age range, 44-89 years) suspected of having ICA stenosis on the basis of Doppler ultrasonographic findings underwent both DSA and contrast-enhanced MR angiography. With each modality, three independent neuroradiologists who were blinded to other test results first visually estimated and subsequently objectively measured stenoses. Diagnostic accuracy and percentage misclassification for correct categorization of 70%-99% stenosis were calculated for SVI, with objective measurements serving as the reference standard. Interobserver variability was determined with kappa statistics.
After exclusion of arteries that were unsuitable for measurement, 180 vessels remained for analysis with DSA and 159 vessels remained for analysis with contrast-enhanced MR angiography. With respect to 70%-99% stenosis, SVI was associated with average misclassification of 8.9% for DSA (8.9%, 7.8%, and 10.0% for readers A, B, and C, respectively) and of 11.7% for contrast-enhanced MR angiography (11.3%, 8.8%, and 15.1% for readers A, B, and C, respectively). Negative predictive values were excellent (92.3%-100%). Interobserver variability was higher for SVI (DSA, kappa = 0.62-0.71; contrast-enhanced MR angiography, kappa = 0.57-0.69) than for objective measurements (DSA, kappa = 0.75-0.80; contrast-enhanced MR angiography, kappa = 0.66-0.72).
SVI alone is not recommended for evaluation of ICA stenosis with both DSA and contrast-enhanced MR angiography. SVI may be acceptable as an initial screening tool to exclude the presence of 70%-99% stenosis, but caliper measurements are warranted to confirm the presence of such stenosis.
前瞻性地确定在数字减影血管造影(DSA)和对比剂增强磁共振(MR)血管造影中,主观视觉印象(SVI)评估颈内动脉(ICA)狭窄的准确性,以客观卡尺测量作为参考标准。
获得当地伦理委员会批准和患者书面知情同意。共有142例有症状患者(41例女性,101例男性;平均年龄70岁;年龄范围44 - 89岁),基于多普勒超声检查结果怀疑有ICA狭窄,接受了DSA和对比剂增强MR血管造影检查。对于每种检查方式,三名对其他检查结果不知情的独立神经放射科医生首先进行视觉估计,随后进行狭窄的客观测量。以客观测量作为参考标准,计算SVI对70% - 99%狭窄正确分类的诊断准确性和错误分类百分比。用kappa统计量确定观察者间的变异性。
排除不适合测量的动脉后,DSA分析剩余180条血管,对比剂增强MR血管造影分析剩余159条血管。对于70% - 99%的狭窄,DSA的SVI平均错误分类率为8.9%(读者A、B、C分别为8.9%、7.8%和10.0%),对比剂增强MR血管造影的SVI平均错误分类率为11.7%(读者A、B、C分别为11.3%、8.8%和15.1%)。阴性预测值极佳(92.3% - 100%)。SVI的观察者间变异性(DSA,kappa = 0.62 - 0.71;对比剂增强MR血管造影,kappa = 0.57 - 0.69)高于客观测量(DSA,kappa = 0.75 - 0.80;对比剂增强MR血管造影,kappa = 0.66 - 0.72)。
不建议单独使用SVI通过DSA和对比剂增强MR血管造影评估ICA狭窄。SVI作为排除70% - 99%狭窄存在的初始筛查工具可能是可接受的,但需要卡尺测量来确认此类狭窄的存在。