VARIABILITY IN MEASUREMENT OF EXTRACRANIAL INTERNAL CAROTID-ARTERY STENOSIS AS DISPLAYED BY BOTH DIGITAL SUBTRACTION AND MAGNETIC-RESONANCEANGIOGRAPHY - AN ASSESSMENT OF 3 CALIPER TECHNIQUES AND VISUAL IMPRESSION OF STENOSIS
Gr. Young et al., VARIABILITY IN MEASUREMENT OF EXTRACRANIAL INTERNAL CAROTID-ARTERY STENOSIS AS DISPLAYED BY BOTH DIGITAL SUBTRACTION AND MAGNETIC-RESONANCEANGIOGRAPHY - AN ASSESSMENT OF 3 CALIPER TECHNIQUES AND VISUAL IMPRESSION OF STENOSIS, Stroke, 27(3), 1996, pp. 467-473
Background and Purpose The degree of stenosis in the extracranial inte
rnal carotid artery helps predict the risk of an individual suffering
subsequent cerebrovascular ischemic events. Different techniques have
evolved to measure stenosis from angiograms, leading to some confusion
and a call for the adoption of a single technique. To help choose the
most reliable technique, this study assessed observer variability in
reporting carotid stenosis for four different techniques, from both di
gital subtraction (DSA) and MR angiograms (MRA). Three of the techniqu
es used caliper measurements; the fourth was the visual impression of
stenosis. Methods From a total of 137 angiograms, caliper measurements
were possible on 105 DSAs and 74 MRAs. Measurements from these angiog
rams were made by two independent observers on two separate occasions
to assess interobserver and intraobserver variation in reporting. Resu
lts For DSA, the variability in reporting and the number of clinically
significant differences arising as a result were similar for each of
the four techniques. While the typical measurement errors for each of
the techniques studied were on the order of +/-5%, each technique prod
uced some sizable individual differences for the same angiogram, with
resultant wide 95% limits of agreement. Observer variability for repor
ting MRA was generally a little greater than for DSA. Compared with th
e caliper techniques, the visual impression of stenosis technique perf
ormed well, particularly for MRA. Conclusions Although observer variab
ility in reporting can be considerable, no important differences were
found among the different techniques widely used for measuring carotid
stenosis.