Grading of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis: Can CTA Overcome the Confusion?

CT Angiography Manual Multiplanar Vessel Diameter Measurement vs. Semiautomated Perpendicular Area Minimal Caliber Computation of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis

Objective: To determine the diagnostic agreement of CT angiography (CTA) manual multiplanar reformatting (MPR) stenosis diameter measurement and semiautomated perpendicular stenosis area minimal caliber computation of extracranial internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis.

Methods: We analyzed acute cerebral ischemia CTA at our tertiary stroke center in a 12-month period. Prospective NASCET-type stenosis grading for each ICA was independently performed using (1) MPR to manually determine diameters and (2) perpendicular stenosis area with minimal caliber semiautomated computation to grade luminal constriction. Corresponding to clinically relevant NASCET strata, results were grouped into severity ranges: normal, 1–49%, 50–69%, and 70–99%, and occlusion.

Results: We included 647 ICA pairs from 330 patients (median age of 74 [66–80, IQR]; 38–92 years; 58% men; median NIHSS 4 [1–9, IQR]). MPR diameter and semiautomated caliber measurements resulted in stenosis grades of 0–49% in 143 vs. 93, 50–69% in 29 vs. 27, 70–99% in 6 vs. 14, and occlusion in 34 vs. 34 ICAs (p = 0.003), respectively. We found excellent reliability between repeated manual CTA assessments of one expert reader (ICC = 0.997; 95% CI, 0.993–0.999) and assessments of two expert readers (ICC = 0.972; 95% CI, 0.936–0.988). For the semiautomated vessel analysis software, both intrarater reliability and interrater reliability were similarly strong (ICC = 0.981; 95% CI, 0.952–0.992 and ICC = 0.745; 95% CI, 0.486–0.883, respectively). However, Bland–Altman analysis revealed a mean difference of 1.6% between the methods within disease range with wide 95% limits of agreement (−16.7–19.8%). This interval even increased with exclusively considered vessel pairs of stenosis ≥1% (mean 5.3%; −24.1–34.7%) or symptomatic stenosis ≥50% (mean 0.1%; −25.7–26.0%).

Conclusion: Our findings suggest that MPR-based diameter measurement and the semiautomated perpendicular area minimal caliber computation methods cannot be used interchangeably for the quantification of ICA steno-occlusive disease.

Systematic review of preoperative carotid duplex ultrasound compared with computed tomography carotid angiography for carotid endarterectomy

INTRODUCTION

We reviewed the literature for preoperative computed tomography carotid angiography and/or carotid duplex to determine their respective sensitivity and specificity in assessing the degree of carotid stenosis. We aimed to identify whether one imaging modality can accurately identify critical stenosis in patients presenting with transient ischaemic attack or symptoms of a cerebrovascular accident requiring carotid endarterectomy.

METHODS

Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, all Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ACP Journal club, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Cochrane Clinical Answers, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment and NHS Economic Evaluation Database) for primary studies relating to computed tomography carotid angiography (CTA) and/or carotid duplex ultrasound (CDU). Studies included were published between 1990 and 2018 and focused on practice in the UK, Europe and North America.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of CTA and CDU are comparable. CDU is safe and readily available in the clinical environment hence its use in the initial preoperative assessment of carotid stenosis. CDU is an adequate imaging modality for determining stenosis greater than 70%; sensitivity and specificity are improved when the criteria for determining greater than 70% stenosis are adjusted. Vascular laboratories opting to use duplex as their sole imaging modality should assess the sensitivity and specificity of their own duplex procedure before altering practice to preoperative single imaging for patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The sensitivity and specificity of CTA (90.6% and 93%, respectively) and CDU (92.3% and 89%, respectively) are comparable. Both are dependent on criteria used in vascular laboratories. CDU sensitivity and specificity was improved to 98.7% and 94.1%, respectively, where peak systolic velocity and end diastolic velocity were assessed. Either modality can be used to determine greater than 70% stenosis, although a secondary imaging modality may be required for cases of greater than 50% stenosis.

Comparison of Measurement and Grading of Carotid Stenosis with Computed Tomography Angiography and Doppler Ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Doppler ultrasound (DUS) and computed tomography angiography (CTA) are the most commonly used imaging modalities for carotid disease. The aim of this study was to test the accuracy and reproducibility of CTA-derived measurements of carotid stenosis and compare them with those obtained by DUS.

METHODS

Images of 100 carotid arteries of patients who underwent carotid DUS at our unit and CTA of the carotids within a 28-day period were identified retrospectively from multidisciplinary team meeting records. CTAs were assessed by 2 investigators, each using a manual and a semi-automated method. With both methods, the degree of stenosis was calculated using the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial equation and graded as mild (0-49%), moderate (50-69%), or severe (70-99%). Cohen's kappa and specificity and sensitivity for ≥50% stenosis were calculated.

RESULTS

The interobserver agreement was moderate (κ 0.407, weighted-κ 0.517) for the manual method and good (κ 0.786, weighted-κ 0.842) for the semi-automated method. Using DUS as the gold standard, the semi-automated method had greater sensitivity (75%) and specificity (91%) in detecting clinically significant carotid artery stenosis (≥50%) than the manual one (63% and 86%, respectively). Agreement between DUS and the semi-automated method of CTA reporting was moderate (κ 0.453, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.320-0.586, weighted-κ 0.598, 95% CI: 0.486-0.710), whereas DUS and the manual method of CTA reporting had only fair agreement (κ 0.344, 95% CI: 0.209-0.478, weighted-κ 0.446, 95% CI: 0.315-0.577).

CONCLUSIONS

CTA tends to underestimate the degree of stenosis when compared with DUS. The semi-automated method of CTA reporting has greater reproducibility and greater agreement with DUS. These findings have practical implications when CTA is used to measure the degree of carotid stenosis in clinical practice.

Diagnostic Accuracy of 4 Commercially Available Semiautomatic Packages for Carotid Artery Stenosis Measurement on CTA

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Semiautomatic measurement of ICA stenosis potentially increases observer reproducibility. In this study, we assessed the diagnostic accuracy and interobserver reproducibility of a commercially available semiautomatic ICA stenosis measurement on CTA and estimated the agreement among different software packages.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analyzed 141 arteries from 90 patients with TIA or ischemic stroke. Manual stenosis measurements were performed by 2 neuroradiologists. Semiautomatic measurements by using 4 methods (3mensio and comparable software from Philips, TeraRecon, and Siemens) were performed by 2 observers. Diagnostic accuracy was estimated by comparing semiautomatic with manual measurements. Interobserver reproducibility and agreement between different packages was assessed by calculation of the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement. False-negative classifications were retrospectively inspected by a neuroradiologist.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the diagnostic performance of the 4 semiautomatic methods. The sensitivity for detecting ≥50% and ≥70% degree of stenosis was between 76% and 82% and 46% and 62%, respectively. Specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy were between 92% and 97% and 85% and 90%, respectively. The interobserver intraclass correlation coefficient was between 0.83 and 0.96 for semiautomatic measurements and 0.81 for manual measurement. The limits of agreement between each pair of semiautomatic packages ranged from -18%-24% to -33%-31%. False-negative classifications were caused by ulcerative plaques and observer variation in stenosis and reference measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Semiautomatic methods have a low-to-good sensitivity and a good specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy. The high interobserver reproducibility makes semiautomatic stenosis measurement valuable for clinical practice, but semiautomatic measurements should be checked by an experienced radiologist.

Performance of semiautomatic assessment of carotid artery stenosis on CT angiography: clarification of differences with manual assessment

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Semiautomated methods for ICA stenosis measurements have the potential to reduce interobserver variability and to speed up its analysis. In this study, we estimate the precision and accuracy of a semiautomated measurement for carotid artery stenosis degree and identify and explain differences compared with the manual method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective study involving 90 patients, 2 observers determined the stenosis degree twice, with both the semiautomated and the manual method. Intra- and interobserver correlations were calculated for both methods. The accuracy was estimated by comparing average semiautomated with manual measurements. The semiautomated stenosis calculations were performed using either the minimal or maximal intersection at the reference site. Individual cases with large differences in measurement were retrospectively inspected by 3 observers.

RESULTS

Intra- (R = 0.93, 0.96) and interobserver (R = 0.98) correlations for the semiautomated method were excellent and exceeded the manual performance correlations (R = 0.87, 0.86). The semiautomated measurements correlated well with the manual measurements (R = 0.87), with high specificity of 96% and lower sensitivity of 63%. Large differences were caused by misinterpretations of the semiautomated method associated with calcified plaques, resulting in overestimations of the minimal diameter, underestimation of stenosis degree, and incorrect centerlines. The effect of using the minimal diameter at the reference position resulted in a small, but significant, underestimation of the stenosis degree by the semiautomated method.

CONCLUSIONS

The semiautomated method showed an excellent reproducibility and good correlation with manual measurements with a high specificity and lower sensitivity for detecting a significant stenosis. Erroneous semiautomatic stenosis measurements were associated with the presence of calcium.

Comparison between quantification methods of carotid artery stenosis and computed tomographic angiography

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare 3 percentage carotid artery measurement methods (the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial [NASCET], the European Carotid Surgery Trial [ECST], and the Carotid Stenosis Index [CSI]) and 1 millimeter method (direct millimeter measurement) to evaluate the difference and correlation between them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven hundred ninety-two patients (591 men; age: mean, 63 years; range, 32-91 years) studied by using a multi-detector row computed tomographic scanner for a total of 1584 carotid arteries were retrospectively analyzed. Each carotid stenosis was measured according to 4 measurement methods (the NASCET, the ECST, the CSI, and the direct millimeter measurement). Carotid arteries with near-occlusion condition were excluded. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z test was used to test the normality of continuous variable groups. Comparison of derived ratio-percent methods was performed by using the Bland-Altman plots, and receiver operating characteristic curves were calculated. Correlation coefficients were also calculated by using a nonparametric Spearman correlation. A P < 0.05 was considered to mean statistical significance.

RESULTS

Four hundred sixteen carotid arteries were excluded, and in the remaining 1168 ones, a strength correlation according to quadratic regression between the NASCET and ECST methods was observed (Spearman rho coefficient, 0.948; P < 0.0001). An inverse correlation according to linear regression was observed between the NASCET and the direct millimeter measurement (Spearman rho coefficient, -0.972; P < 0.0001); the CSI shows a quadratic regression with the NASCET, a linear regression with the ECST, and an inverse linear regression with the direct millimeter measurement (Spearman rho coefficient, 0.946, 0.932, and -0.939 respectively). The cutoff values for 50% and 70% NASCET stenosis were 2.36 and 1.51, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results indicate that the direct millimeter measurement of stenosis, by using appropriate equations, can reliably predict NASCET-, ECST-, and CSI-type percent stenoses. The use of direct millimeter measurement may remove the pitfalls and the discrepancies deriving from the use of different ratio-percent methods.

Reappraisal of velocity criteria for carotid bulb/internal carotid artery stenosis utilizing high-resolution B-mode ultrasound validated with computed tomography angiography

OBJECTIVE

Reliability of the most commonly used duplex ultrasound (DUS) velocity thresholds for internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis has been questioned since these thresholds were developed using less precise methods to grade stenosis severity based on angiography. In this study, maximum percent diameter carotid bulb ICA stenosis (European Carotid Surgery Trial [ECST] method) was objectively measured using high resolution B-mode DUS validated with computed tomography angiography (CTA) and used to determine optimum velocity thresholds for > or =50% and > or =80% bulb internal carotid artery stenosis (ICA).

METHODS

B-mode DUS and CTA images of 74 bulb ICA stenoses were compared to validate accuracy of the DUS measurements. In 337 mild, moderate, and severe bulb ICA stenoses (n = 232 patients), the minimal residual lumen and the maximum outer bulb/proximal ICA diameter were determined on longitudinal and transverse images. This in contrast to the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) method using normal distal ICA lumen diameter as the denominator. Severe calcified carotid segments and patients with contralateral occlusion were excluded. In each study, the highest peak systolic (PSV) and end-diastolic (EDV) velocities as well as ICA/common carotid artery (CCA) ratio were recorded. Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, the optimum threshold for each hemodynamic parameter was determined to predict > or =50% (n = 281) and > or =80% (n = 62) bulb ICA stenosis.

RESULTS

Patients mean age was 74 +/- 8 years; 49% females. Clinical risk factors for atherosclerosis included coronary artery disease (40%), diabetes mellitus (32%), hypertension (70%), smoking (34%), and hypercholesterolemia (49%). Thirty-three percent of carotid lesions (n = 110) presented with ischemic cerebrovascular symptoms and 67% (n = 227) were asymptomatic. There was an excellent agreement between B-mode DUS and CTA (r = 0.9, P = .002). The inter/intraobserver agreement (kappa) for B-mode imaging measurements were 0.8 and 0.9, respectively, and for CTA measurements 0.8 and 0.9, respectively. When both PSV of > or =155 cm/s and ICA/CCA ratio of > or =2 were combined for the detection of > or =50% bulb ICA stenosis, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 97% and an accuracy of 82% were obtained. For a > or =80% bulb ICA stenosis, an EDV of > or =140 cm/s, a PSV of > or =370 cm/s and an ICA/CCA ratio of > or =6 had acceptable probability values.

CONCLUSION

Compared with established velocity thresholds commonly applied in practice, a substantially higher PSV (155 vs 125 cm/s) was more accurate for detecting > or =50% bulb/ICA stenosis. In combination, a PSV of > or =155 cm/s and an ICA/CCA ratio of > or =2 have excellent predictive value for this stenosis category. For > or =80% bulb ICA stenosis (NASCET 60% stenosis), an EDV of 140 cm/s, a PSV of > or =370 cm/s, and an ICA/CCA ratio of > or =6 are equally reliable and do not indicate any major change from the established criteria. Current DUS > or =50% bulb ICA stenosis criteria appear to overestimate carotid bifurcation disease and may predispose patients with asymptomatic carotid disease to untoward costly diagnostic imaging and intervention.

Automated CTA Quantification of Internal Carotid Artery Stenosis:A Pilot Trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the feasibility and accuracy of automated analysis software for use with multidetector computed tomographic angiography (CTA) in the exact grading of internal carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

A retrospective pilot trial was performed using CTA datasets from 87 stenotic carotid arteries in 46 consecutive patients (34 men; median age 73.5 years) with known cerebrovascular disease. Internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis was graded according to NASCET criteria by 2 experienced vascular radiologists in consensus using axial source images as well as curved planar reformations and digital subtraction angiography (DSA). These results were then compared to those obtained from the automated CTA analysis software and the results of manually adapted automated CTA analysis.

RESULTS

Measurements from automated CTA analysis as well as manually adapted automated CTA analysis correlated significantly to those of axial/reformatted CTA and DSA (r=0.53 and r=0.82, r=0.58 and 0.70, respectively, all p<0.05). Compared to axial/reformatted CTA measurements, automated CTA analysis had a median difference of -16%, while manually adapted automated CTA had a difference of -10%. Corresponding differences in a comparison with DSA were +4% and -2%, respectively. Circumferential calcification or kinking of the ICA origin did not significantly interfere with these differences (all p>0.05). Sensitivities for the detection of ICA stenosis >70% by manually adapted automated CTA analysis and automated measurement were 44.2% and 34.9%, respectively, versus axial/reformatted CTA. Compared with DSA as the gold standard, the sensitivities were 54.2% and 62.5%, respectively. Specificities for both methods and gold standards all exceeded 90%.

CONCLUSION

Commercially available automated CTA analysis is a feasible tool, but sensitivities are still not sufficient for clinical application.