Speranza Giancarlo, Harish Keerthi, Rockman Caron, Sadek Mikel, Jacobowitz Glenn, Garg Karan, Chang Heepeel, Teter Katherine, Maldonado Thomas S
New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY.
Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, New York University Langone Health, New York, NY.
J Vasc Surg. 2024 Mar;79(3):577-583. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2023.11.029. Epub 2023 Nov 20.
Investigations into imaging modalities in the diagnosis of extracranial carotid artery occlusion (CAO) have raised questions about the inter-modality comparability of duplex ultrasound (DUS) and cross-sectional imaging (CSI). This study examines the relationship between DUS and CSI diagnoses of extracranial CAO.
This single-institution retrospective analysis studied patients with CAO diagnosed by DUS from 2010 to 2021. Patients were identified in our office-based accredited vascular laboratory database. Imaging and clinical data was obtained via our institutional electronic medical record. Primary outcome was discrepancy between DUS and CSI modalities. Secondary outcomes included incidence of stroke and intervention subsequent to CAO diagnosis.
Of our 140-patient cohort, 95 patients (67.9%) had DUS follow-up (mean, 42.7 ± 31.3 months). At index duplex, 68.0% of individuals (n = 51) were asymptomatic. Seventy-five patients (53.6%) had CSI of the carotids after DUS CAO diagnosis; 18 (24%) underwent magnetic resonance imaging and 57 (76%) underwent computed tomography. Indications for CSI included follow-up of DUS findings of carotid stenosis/occlusion (44%), stroke/transient ischemic attack (16%), other symptoms (12%), preoperative evaluation (2.7%), unrelated pathology follow-up (9.3%), and outside institution imaging with unavailable indications (16%). When comparing patients with CSI and those without, there were no differences with regard to symptoms at diagnosis, prior neck interventions, or hypertension. There was a significant difference between cross-sectionally imaged and non-imaged patients in anti-hypertensive medications (72% vs 53.8%; P = .04). Despite initial DUS diagnoses of carotid occlusion, 10 patients (13.3%) ultimately had CSI indicating patent carotids. Four of these 10 patients had stenoses of ∼99% (with 1 string sign), four of 70% to 99%, one of 50% to 69%, and one of less than 50% on CSI. The majority of patients (70%) had CSI within 1 month of the index ultrasound. There were no significant relationships between imaging discrepancies and body mass index, heart failure, upper body edema, carotid artery calcification, and neck hardware. Eight individuals (10.7%) underwent ipsilateral revascularization; 62.5% (n = 5) were carotid endarterectomy procedures, and the remaining three procedures were a transcervical carotid revascularization, subclavian to internal carotid artery bypass, and transfemoral carotid artery stenting. Eight patients (10.7%) underwent contralateral revascularization, with the same distribution of procedures as those ipsilateral to occlusions. Two of the 10 patients with discrepancies underwent carotid endarterectomy, and one underwent carotid stenting.
In our experience, duplex diagnosis of CAO is associated with a greater than 10% discordance when compared with CSI. These patients may benefit from closer surveillance as well as confirmatory computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography. Further work is needed to determine the optimal diagnostic modality for CAO.
对颅外颈动脉闭塞(CAO)诊断中成像方式的研究引发了关于双功超声(DUS)和断层成像(CSI)之间模态可比性的问题。本研究探讨了DUS和CSI对颅外CAO诊断之间的关系。
这项单机构回顾性分析研究了2010年至2021年期间经DUS诊断为CAO的患者。患者在我们基于办公室的认可血管实验室数据库中被识别。成像和临床数据通过我们机构的电子病历获得。主要结果是DUS和CSI模态之间的差异。次要结果包括CAO诊断后中风和干预的发生率。
在我们的140例患者队列中,95例患者(67.9%)进行了DUS随访(平均42.7±31.3个月)。在初次双功超声检查时,68.0%的个体(n = 51)无症状。75例患者(53.6%)在DUS诊断CAO后进行了颈动脉的CSI检查;18例(24%)接受了磁共振成像,57例(76%)接受了计算机断层扫描。CSI的指征包括对DUS发现的颈动脉狭窄/闭塞进行随访(44%)、中风/短暂性脑缺血发作(16%)、其他症状(12%)、术前评估(2.7%)、无关病理学随访(9.3%)以及外部机构成像但指征不明(16%)。比较有CSI检查的患者和没有进行CSI检查的患者,在诊断时的症状、既往颈部干预或高血压方面没有差异。在接受断层成像的患者和未接受成像的患者之间,在使用抗高血压药物方面存在显著差异(72%对53.8%;P = 0.04)。尽管最初DUS诊断为颈动脉闭塞,但10例患者(13.3%)最终的CSI显示颈动脉通畅。这10例患者中有4例在CSI上显示狭窄约99%(有1个线样征),4例为70%至99%,1例为50%至69%,1例小于50%。大多数患者(70%)在初次超声检查后1个月内进行了CSI检查。成像差异与体重指数、心力衰竭、上身水肿、颈动脉钙化和颈部固定装置之间没有显著关系。8例患者(10.7%)接受了同侧血运重建;62.5%(n = 5)为颈动脉内膜切除术,其余3例手术分别为经颈颈动脉血运重建、锁骨下动脉至颈内动脉旁路移植术和经股颈动脉支架置入术。8例患者(10.7%)接受了对侧血运重建,手术分布与闭塞同侧的患者相同。10例有差异的患者中有2例接受了颈动脉内膜切除术,1例接受了颈动脉支架置入术。
根据我们的经验,与CSI相比,DUS对CAO的诊断存在超过10%的不一致性。这些患者可能受益于更密切的监测以及确定性的计算机断层扫描或磁共振血管造影。需要进一步开展工作以确定CAO的最佳诊断方式。