Neale M L, Chambers J L, Kelly A T, Connard S, Lawton M A, Roche J, Appleberg M
Department of Vascular Surgery, Royal North Shore Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
J Vasc Surg. 1994 Oct;20(4):642-9. doi: 10.1016/0741-5214(94)90290-9.
Duplex examination is today the principal initial method of assessing extracranial carotid or vertebral artery disease. However, varying haemodynamic criteria have been described to categorize the degree of internal carotid artery stenosis, and similarly the degree of stenosis detected with angiography has been assessed with different methods as highlighted in studies performed by the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial and the European Carotid Surgery Trial. This study looks at the correlation between two commonly used methods of assessing carotid artery stenosis with duplex criteria and the two methods of angiographic interpretation used in these trials. Duplex parameters are also identified to determine the greater than 70% stenosis group identified as at risk in these studies.
A total of 120 carotid bifurcations were studied in patients who underwent both carotid duplex and angiography. Correlations of duplex with angiography were assessed with duplex criteria described by Zwiebel and by Strandness and the angiographic methods used in studies performed by the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial and the European Carotid Surgery Trial. Receiver operator curves were constructed from the duplex data for the detection of stenosis greater than 70% based on the angiographic assessment used in the study performed by the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial.
The duplex criteria described by Zwiebel and Strandness differed in their accuracy depending on which of the two methods was used to report the angiograms. Zwiebel's criteria agreed more with the angiographic method used in the study performed by the European Carotid Surgery Trial (sensitivity 98%, specificity 81%, accuracy 88%), whereas Strandness' criteria agreed more with the angiographic method used in the study performed by the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (sensitivity 96%, specificity 85%, accuracy 89%). For the detection of a stenosis greater than 70%, a peak systolic velocity greater than 270 cm/sec and end diastolic velocity greater than 110 cm/sec provided a sensitivity of 96%, specificity of 91%, and accuracy of 93%.
The accuracy of duplex studies compared with angiography in the assessment of extracranial vascular disease depends on the method of angiographic determination of carotid stenosis. Vascular laboratories should validate the duplex criteria they use against a standard method of angiographic assessment of carotid artery stenosis, with special reference to the recently reported studies noting the significance of a stenosis greater than 70% in patients with symptoms.
双功超声检查如今是评估颅外颈动脉或椎动脉疾病的主要初始方法。然而,已描述了不同的血流动力学标准来对颈内动脉狭窄程度进行分类,同样,血管造影检测到的狭窄程度也采用了不同方法进行评估,如北美症状性颈动脉内膜切除术试验和欧洲颈动脉外科试验所开展的研究中所强调的那样。本研究探讨了两种常用的采用双功超声标准评估颈动脉狭窄的方法与这些试验中使用的两种血管造影解读方法之间的相关性。还确定了双功超声参数,以确定在这些研究中被认定为有风险的狭窄程度大于70%的组别。
对120例接受了颈动脉双功超声检查和血管造影的患者的颈动脉分叉进行了研究。采用Zwiebel和Strandness描述的双功超声标准以及北美症状性颈动脉内膜切除术试验和欧洲颈动脉外科试验所开展的研究中使用的血管造影方法,评估双功超声与血管造影的相关性。根据北美症状性颈动脉内膜切除术试验所开展的研究中使用的血管造影评估,利用双功超声数据构建检测狭窄程度大于70%的受试者工作特征曲线。
根据用于报告血管造影的两种方法中的哪一种,Zwiebel和Strandness描述的双功超声标准在准确性方面存在差异。Zwiebel的标准与欧洲颈动脉外科试验所开展的研究中使用的血管造影方法更为一致(敏感性98%,特异性81%,准确性88%),而Strandness的标准与北美症状性颈动脉内膜切除术试验所开展的研究中使用的血管造影方法更为一致(敏感性96%,特异性85%,准确性89%)。对于检测狭窄程度大于70%的情况,收缩期峰值流速大于270厘米/秒和舒张末期流速大于110厘米/秒时,敏感性为96%,特异性为91%,准确性为93%。
在评估颅外血管疾病时,与血管造影相比,双功超声检查的准确性取决于颈动脉狭窄血管造影测定的方法。血管实验室应参照颈动脉狭窄血管造影评估的标准方法,验证其使用的双功超声标准,尤其要参考最近报道的研究,这些研究指出症状性患者中狭窄程度大于70%的意义。