Johansson Elias, Barud Intisaar, Strömberg Sofia
Neuroscience and Physiology, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Institute of Medicine, Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Eur Stroke J. 2025 Jul 15:23969873251355158. doi: 10.1177/23969873251355158.
To summarize carotid near-occlusion (CNO) diagnostics and its consequences on epidemiology and management.
A systematic search of PubMed using 19 known synonyms for CNO was performed. Diagnostic analyses of CNO were assessed. Epidemiological and management analyses were based on how the CNO diagnostics was conducted, with diagnostics resembling large trials considered "good."
CNO can be diagnosed with several modalities and approaches (interpretation or measurements). Interpretation of angiography is the reference standard but is not feasible for routine use. Of feasible methods, flow measurements with phase-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (PC-MRI) were considerably better than other alternatives when assessed blinded: 90%-100% sensitive and 99%-100% specific and inter-rater kappa 0.98-1.0. CNO was consistently common (30% of ⩾50% stenosis) in studies with "good" CNO diagnostics but was also often described as rare. Symptomatic CNO have no benefit with revascularization in studies with "good" CNO diagnostics, which foremost applies to the moderate subtype (without full collapse). The more severe CNO subtype (with full collapse) seems to have a very high risk of stroke within the first 2 days, but revascularization performed sufficiently early to prevent this has never been assessed.
CNO diagnostics is difficult and that CNO is perceived as rare by many is likely due to poor diagnostics. Such poor diagnostics also likely result in unnecessary surgeries for many symptomatic CNOs.
CNO is a common variant of carotid stenosis. New diagnostic methods (especially PC-MRI) should be introduced, possibly after validation of its prognostic impact in a randomized trial.
总结颈动脉近乎闭塞(CNO)的诊断及其对流行病学和治疗的影响。
使用19个已知的CNO同义词在PubMed上进行系统检索。对CNO的诊断分析进行评估。流行病学和治疗分析基于CNO诊断的方式,将类似大型试验的诊断视为“良好”。
CNO可通过多种方式和方法(解读或测量)进行诊断。血管造影解读是参考标准,但不适合常规使用。在盲法评估时,相位对比磁共振成像(PC-MRI)进行的血流测量比其他可行方法要好得多:敏感度为90%-100%,特异度为99%-100%,评分者间kappa值为0.98-1.0。在具有“良好”CNO诊断的研究中,CNO一直很常见(在≥50%狭窄中占30%),但也常被描述为罕见。在具有“良好”CNO诊断的研究中,有症状的CNO进行血运重建并无益处,这主要适用于中度亚型(无完全闭塞)。更严重的CNO亚型(完全闭塞)在前2天内似乎有非常高的卒中风险,但从未评估过足够早期进行血运重建以预防这种情况。
CNO诊断困难,许多人认为CNO罕见可能是由于诊断不佳。这种不佳的诊断也可能导致许多有症状的CNO进行了不必要的手术。
CNO是颈动脉狭窄的常见变体。应引入新的诊断方法(尤其是PC-MRI),可能在随机试验中验证其预后影响之后。