Validity of duplex ultrasound as a diagnostic modality for internal carotid artery disease

Citation
G. New et al., Validity of duplex ultrasound as a diagnostic modality for internal carotid artery disease, CATHET C IN, 52(1), 2001, pp. 9-15
Citations number
19
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiovascular & Respiratory Systems
Journal title
CATHETERIZATION AND CARDIOVASCULAR INTERVENTIONS
ISSN journal
15221946 → ACNP
Volume
52
Issue
1
Year of publication
2001
Pages
9 - 15
Database
ISI
SICI code
1522-1946(200101)52:1<9:VODUAA>2.0.ZU;2-Q
Abstract
There is an increasing trend to rely on duplex ultrasound rather than angio graphy to measure an internal carotid artery stenosis. The aim of this stud y was to determine the validity of ultrasound assessment of carotid stenosi s performed in community based vascular laboratories. We compared ultrasoun d with angiography in 225 patients referred to us for carotid intervention. Mild lesions were diagnosed by ultrasound with a sensitivity of 54%, speci ficity of 89%, and a positive predictive value of 89% compared with angiogr aphy. Severe lesions had a sensitivity of 93%, a specificity of 67%, and a positive predictive value of 45%. Receiver operator characteristic curves d emonstrated the optimal ultrasound cut-off value of 66% stenosis as a predi ctor of >60% stenosis measured angiographically, is associated with a false positive rate of 38%, and a false negative rate of 9%. Similarly, if a cut -off of 76% on ultrasound is used to predict >70% stenosis measured angiogr aphically, it would be associated with a 29% false positive rate and a fals e negative rate of 11%. Despite the value of non-invasive testing for carot id disease, duplex ultrasonography performed in non-accredited and some acc redited laboratories may produce highly variable results. Using ultrasound as the sole diagnostic test to determine the severity of a carotid stenosis may result in a high number of inappropriate operations and a large propor tion of patients who may not be offered treatment due to false negative dia gnoses. Cathet Cardiovasc Intervent 2001;52:9-15. (C) 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc.