Key result
3-D contrast-enhanced fusion ultrasound matches 3-D CTA for measuring lumen volume.
Why the study?
Three-dimensional CEFUS was unproven in intermodality studies, motivating an assessment of its applicability compared with 3-D CTA lumenography as a proof-of-concept study.
Does 3-D contrast-enhanced fusion ultrasound (CEFUS) provide comparable lumen and plaque volume measurements to 3-D computed tomography angiography (CTA) in patients with carotid artery disease?
Cross-Sectional (n=23)
No
Does 3-D contrast-enhanced fusion ultrasound (CEFUS) provide comparable lumen and plaque volume measurements to 3-D computed tomography angiography (CTA) in patients with carotid artery disease?
3-D contrast-enhanced fusion ultrasound provides highly accurate carotid lumen volume measurements comparable to 3-D CTA, and may offer more reliable plaque volume quantification due to superior vessel wall visualization.
3-D CEFUS agrees with CTA on carotid lumen volume; leaves open plaque quantification accuracy and clinical adoption.
ObjectiveThree-dimensional contrast-enhanced fusion ultrasound (CEFUS) of atherosclerotic carotid arteries provides spatial visualization of the vessel lumen, creating a lumenography. As in 3-D computed tomography angiography (CTA), 3-D CEFUS outlines the contrast-filled lumen. Plaque and vessel contours are distinguished in 3-D CEFUS, allowing plaque volume quantification as a valid estimate of carotid plaque burden. Three-dimensional CEFUS is unproven in intermodality studies, vindicating the assessment of 3-D CEFUS applicability and comparing 3-D CEFUS and 3-D CTA lumenography as a proof-of-concept study.MethodsUsing an ultrasound system with magnetic tracking, a linear array transducer and SonoVue contrast agent, 3-D CEFUS acquisitions were generated by spatial stitching of serial 2-D images. From 3-D CEFUS and 3-D CTA imaging, the atherosclerotic carotid arteries were reconstructed with lumenography in an offline software program for lumen and plaque volume quantification. Bland–Altman analysis was used for inter-image modality agreement.ResultsThe study included 39 carotid arteries. Mean lumen and plaque volume in 3-D CEFUS were 0.63 cm3 (standard deviation [SD]: 0.26) and 0.62 cm3 (SD: 0.26), respectively. Lumen volume differences between 3-D CEFUS and 3-D CTA were non-significant, with a mean difference of 0.01 cm3 (SD: 0.02, p = 0.26) and limits of agreement (LoA) range of ±0.11 cm3. Mean plaque volume difference was –0.12 cm3 (SD: 0.19, p = 0.006) with a LoA range of ±0.39 cm3.ConclusionThere was strong agreement in lumenography between 3-D CEFUS and 3-D CTA. The interimage modality difference in plaque volumes was substantial because of challenging vessel wall definition in 3-D CTA. Three-dimensional CEFUS is viable in quantifying carotid plaque volume burden and can potentially monitor plaque development over time. Three-dimensional contrast-enhanced fusion ultrasound (CEFUS) of atherosclerotic carotid arteries provides spatial visualization of the vessel lumen, creating a lumenography. As in 3-D computed tomography angiography (CTA), 3-D CEFUS outlines the contrast-filled lumen. Plaque and vessel contours are distinguished in 3-D CEFUS, allowing plaque volume quantification as a valid estimate of carotid plaque burden. Three-dimensional CEFUS is unproven in intermodality studies, vindicating the assessment of 3-D CEFUS applicability and comparing 3-D CEFUS and 3-D CTA lumenography as a proof-of-concept study. Using an ultrasound system with magnetic tracking, a linear array transducer and SonoVue contrast agent, 3-D CEFUS acquisitions were generated by spatial stitching of serial 2-D images. From 3-D CEFUS and 3-D CTA imaging, the atherosclerotic carotid arteries were reconstructed with lumenography in an offline software program for lumen and plaque volume quantification. Bland–Altman analysis was used for inter-image modality agreement. The study included 39 carotid arteries. Mean lumen and plaque volume in 3-D CEFUS were 0.63 cm3 (standard deviation [SD]: 0.26) and 0.62 cm3 (SD: 0.26), respectively. Lumen volume differences between 3-D CEFUS and 3-D CTA were non-significant, with a mean difference of 0.01 cm3 (SD: 0.02, p = 0.26) and limits of agreement (LoA) range of ±0.11 cm3. Mean plaque volume difference was –0.12 cm3 (SD: 0.19, p = 0.006) with a LoA range of ±0.39 cm3. There was strong agreement in lumenography between 3-D CEFUS and 3-D CTA. The interimage modality difference in plaque volumes was substantial because of challenging vessel wall definition in 3-D CTA. Three-dimensional CEFUS is viable in quantifying carotid plaque volume burden and can potentially monitor plaque development over time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yeung et al. (2024) conducted a cross-sectional in Symptomatic carotid artery disease (n=23). 3-D contrast-enhanced fusion ultrasound (CEFUS) vs. 3-D computed tomography angiography (CTA) was evaluated on Agreement in lumen volume between 3-D CEFUS and 3-D CTA (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.04, p=0.26). 3-D contrast-enhanced fusion ultrasound showed strong lumenography agreement with 3-D CTA, demonstrating a non-significant mean lumen volume difference of 0.01 cm3.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: