Suppr超能文献

颈动脉多普勒超声与计算机断层血管造影术在评估颈动脉狭窄中的比较。

Comparison of carotid Doppler ultrasound and computerised tomographic angiography in the evaluation of carotid artery stenosis.

作者信息

Titi M, George C, Bhattacharya D, Rahi A, Woodhead P M, Stevenson W J, Pillai A, Al-Khaffaf H

机构信息

Vascular Department, Burnley General Hospital, East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, UK.

出版信息

Surgeon. 2007 Jun;5(3):132-6. doi: 10.1016/s1479-666x(07)80039-4.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare results of carotid Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) and spiral computerised tomographic angiography (CTA) in patients with suspected carotid artery stenosis and to evaluate their combined effect on decision making for carotid endarterectomy (CEA).

METHODS

A total of 107 patients were studied. All of the patients had CDUS followed by CTA as a standard method of investigation. Data included the indications for investigation, stenosis degree measured in both modalities, in addition to difficulties and limitations faced while doing them.

RESULTS

Out of the 214 carotid scans performed, 187 scans were included in the comparison, while 27 scans were excluded due to inadequate data or imaging difficulties. The overall concordance between both CDUS and CTA was 79.1% (148/187) (95% CI 0.72-0.83). CDUS under-estimated and over-estimated the degree of stenosis in 26/187 (14%, 95% CI 0.09-0.19) and 13/187 (7%, 95% CI 0.04-0.12), respectively. When CTA was considered in conjunction with CDUS, the decision regarding operative treatment was changed in 29/187 cases (16%) (95% CI 0.11-0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

CDUS remains the first line non-invasive imaging for carotid artery stenosis. However, in cases where it is inconclusive, CTA is an excellent, reliable, minimally invasive, and outpatient alternative for patient selection for CEA.

摘要

目的

比较颈动脉多普勒超声(CDUS)和螺旋计算机断层血管造影(CTA)在疑似颈动脉狭窄患者中的检查结果,并评估它们对颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)决策的综合影响。

方法

共研究了107例患者。所有患者均先进行CDUS检查,然后以CTA作为标准检查方法。数据包括检查指征、两种检查方式测量的狭窄程度,以及检查过程中遇到的困难和局限性。

结果

在进行的214次颈动脉扫描中,187次扫描纳入比较,27次扫描因数据不足或成像困难被排除。CDUS和CTA的总体一致性为79.1%(148/187)(95%可信区间0.72 - 0.83)。CDUS分别低估和高估狭窄程度的比例为26/187(14%,95%可信区间0.09 - 0.19)和13/187(7%,95%可信区间0.04 - 0.12)。当将CTA与CDUS结合考虑时,187例中有29例(16%)(95%可信区间0.11 - 0.21)的手术治疗决策发生了改变。

结论

CDUS仍然是颈动脉狭窄的一线无创成像检查方法。然而,在结果不明确的情况下,CTA是一种用于CEA患者选择的优秀、可靠、微创且可门诊进行的替代检查方法。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验