Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Mass.
Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Mass.
J Vasc Surg. 2021 Aug;74(2):579-585.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.12.085. Epub 2021 Feb 3.
The degree of carotid artery stenosis, calculated using catheter-based angiography and the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) method, has been shown to predict the stroke risk in several, large, randomized controlled trials. In the present era, patients have been increasingly evaluated using computed tomography (CT) angiography (CTA) before carotid artery revascularization, especially as the use of transcarotid artery revascularization has increased. Interpretation of CTA findings regarding the degree of carotid stenosis has not been standardized, with both NASCET methods and the area stenosis used. We performed a single-institution, blinded, retrospective analysis of CTA studies using both the NASCET method and the CT-derived area stenosis to assess the concordance and discordance between the two methods when evaluating ≥70% and ≥80% stenosis.
The UMass Memorial Medical Center vascular laboratory database was queried for all carotid duplex ultrasound scans performed from 2008 to 2017. The included patients were limited to those with duplex-defined ≥70% stenosis (defined as a peak systolic velocity of ≥125 cm/s and an internal carotid artery/common carotid artery ratio of ≥4), and a correlative CTA study performed within 1 year of the duplex ultrasound examination. A blinded review of all correlative CTA studies using centerline measurements on a three-dimensional workstation (Aquarius iNtuition Viewer; Terarecon, Durham, NC) was performed to characterize the degree of carotid stenosis using the NASCET method and the area stenosis method. Patients were excluded if revascularization had been performed between the two imaging studies.
Of the 37,204 carotid duplex ultrasound scans reviewed (performed from 2008 to 2017), 3480 arteries met the criteria for duplex ultrasound-defined ≥70% stenosis. A correlative CTA study within 1 year of the duplex ultrasound examination was identified in 460 arteries, of which 320 were adequate quality for blinded review. The median interval between the duplex ultrasound and CTA examinations was 9.5 days. Concordance between the area stenosis and NASCET methods was poor for both ≥70% (κ = 0.32) and ≥80% (κ = 0.25) stenosis. Of the 247 arteries considered to have ≥70% area stenosis, 127 (51.4%) were considered to have ≥70% stenosis using the NASCET method. Of the 169 arteries considered to have ≥80% area stenosis, 44 (26.0%) were considered to have ≥80% stenosis using the NASCET method.
The area stenosis CTA calculations of carotid artery stenosis dramatically overestimated the degree of carotid stenosis compared with that calculated using the NASCET method. Given that stroke risk estimates have been determined from trials that used the NASCET method, the area stenosis method likely overestimates the risk of stroke. Therefore, area stenosis calculations could lead to unnecessary carotid revascularization procedures. This model highlights the need for standardized usage of the NASCET method when using CTA as the imaging modality to determine the threshold for carotid revascularization.
使用基于导管的血管造影术和北美症状性颈动脉内膜切除术试验(NASCET)方法计算的颈动脉狭窄程度已在几项大型随机对照试验中证明可预测中风风险。在当前时代,由于经颈动脉血管重建术的应用日益增加,患者在进行颈动脉血管重建术之前越来越多地接受计算机断层扫描(CT)血管造影(CTA)检查。关于颈动脉狭窄程度的 CTA 结果的解释尚未标准化,既使用 NASCET 方法也使用面积狭窄度。我们对使用 NASCET 方法和 CT 得出的面积狭窄度的 CTA 研究进行了单中心、盲法、回顾性分析,以评估在评估≥70%和≥80%狭窄时这两种方法之间的一致性和不一致性。
从 2008 年至 2017 年,UMass Memorial Medical Center 血管实验室数据库查询了所有颈动脉双功超声检查。包括的患者仅限于双功能超声定义的≥70%狭窄的患者(定义为收缩期峰值速度≥125 cm/s 和颈内动脉/颈总动脉比值≥4),并且在双功能超声检查后 1 年内进行了相关 CTA 研究。对所有相关 CTA 研究进行了中心线测量的盲法三维工作站(Aquarius iNtuition Viewer;Terarecon,北卡罗来纳州达勒姆)回顾,使用 NASCET 方法和面积狭窄度方法描述颈动脉狭窄程度。如果在两次影像学检查之间进行了血管重建,则将患者排除在外。
在审查的 37,204 次颈动脉双功超声检查中(2008 年至 2017 年进行),3480 条动脉符合双功能超声定义的≥70%狭窄的标准。在双功能超声检查后 1 年内确定了相关的 CTA 研究,其中 460 条动脉质量足够进行盲法审查。双功能超声和 CTA 检查之间的中位间隔为 9.5 天。≥70%(κ=0.32)和≥80%(κ=0.25)狭窄时,面积狭窄度和 NASCET 方法之间的一致性较差。在 247 条被认为有≥70%面积狭窄的动脉中,有 127 条(51.4%)被认为有≥70%的狭窄使用 NASCET 方法。在 169 条被认为有≥80%面积狭窄的动脉中,有 44 条(26.0%)被认为有≥80%的狭窄使用 NASCET 方法。
与使用 NASCET 方法计算的狭窄程度相比,CTA 计算的颈动脉狭窄程度的面积狭窄度严重高估了颈动脉狭窄的程度。鉴于中风风险估计是从使用 NASCET 方法的试验中确定的,因此面积狭窄度方法可能高估了中风的风险。因此,面积狭窄度计算可能导致不必要的颈动脉血运重建手术。该模型强调了在使用 CTA 作为确定颈动脉血运重建阈值的成像方式时,需要使用标准化的 NASCET 方法。