Key result
Carotid ultrasound yields a low 22% sensitivity for diagnosing carotid near-occlusion versus CT angiography.
Why the study?
The study was conducted to assess the sensitivity and specificity of common carotid ultrasound methods for the diagnosis of carotid near-occlusion.
Does common carotid ultrasound accurately diagnose carotid near-occlusion compared to CTA in patients with carotid stenosis?
Cohort (n=548)
Double-blind (sonographers blinded to CTA, CTA reviewers blinded to ultrasound)
No
Does common carotid ultrasound accurately diagnose carotid near-occlusion compared to CTA in patients with carotid stenosis?
Commonly used carotid ultrasound methods have low sensitivity (22%) for diagnosing carotid near-occlusion, frequently misdiagnosing it as conventional ≥50% stenosis.
Ultrasound may miss most near-occlusions; leaves open whether CTA confirmation is needed in stenosis evaluation.
PURPOSE: To assess the sensitivity and specificity of common carotid ultrasound method for carotid near-occlusion diagnosis. METHODS: Five hundred forty-eight patients examined with both ultrasound and CTA within 30 days of each other were analyzed. CTA graded by near-occlusion experts was used as reference standard. Low flow velocity, unusual findings, and commonly used flow velocity parameters were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred three near-occlusions, 272 conventional ≥50% stenosis, 162 <50% stenosis, and 11 occlusions were included. Carotid ultrasound was 22% (95%CI 14-30%; 23/103) sensitive and 99% (95%CI 99-100%; 442/445) specific for near-occlusion diagnosis. Near-occlusions overlooked on ultrasound were found misdiagnosed as occlusions (n = 13, 13%), conventional ≥50% stenosis (n = 65, 63%) and < 50% stenosis (n = 2, 2%). No velocity parameter or combination of parameters could identify the 65 near-occlusions mistaken for conventional ≥50% stenoses with >75% sensitivity and specificity. CONCLUSION: Near-occlusion is difficult to diagnose with commonly used carotid ultrasound methods. Improved carotid ultrasound methods are needed if ultrasound is to retain its position as sole preoperative modality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Johansson et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Carotid near-occlusion (n=548). Carotid ultrasound vs. CT-angiography (reference standard) was evaluated on Sensitivity for near-occlusion diagnosis (Sensitivity, 95% CI 14-30). Carotid ultrasound demonstrated a low sensitivity of 22% and a specificity of 99% for diagnosing carotid near-occlusion compared to CT-angiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: