Key result
Electronic carotid bruit detection is linked to ~14-fold higher odds of significant carotid stenosis.
Why the study?
Electronic auscultation appears superior to acoustic auscultation for identifying hemodynamic abnormalities, but its association with carotid stenoses and increased CIMT in diabetic patients was unclear.
Does the presence of carotid bruits detected by electronic auscultation predict carotid stenosis and increased CIMT in patients with diabetes?
Case-Control (n=100)
Does the presence of carotid bruits detected by electronic auscultation predict carotid stenosis and increased CIMT in patients with diabetes?
Electronic auscultation of carotid bruits has a high negative predictive value for ruling out hemodynamically important stenosis in patients with diabetes, though its positive predictive value is low.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
High NPV may reduce unnecessary carotid imaging in diabetes; leaves open outcome impact and need for prospective validation.
Background: Electronic auscultation appears superior to acoustic auscultation for identifying hemodynamic abnormalities. The aim of this study was to determine whether carotid bruits detected by electronic stethoscope in patients with diabetes are associated with stenoses and increased carotid intima-medial thickness (CIMT). Subjects and Methods: Fifty Fremantle Diabetes Study patients (mean±SD age, 73.7±10.0 years; 38.0% males) with a bruit found by electronic auscultation and 50 age- and sex-matched patients with normal carotid sounds were studied. The degree of stenosis and CIMT were assessed from duplex ultrasonography. Results: Patients with a bruit were more likely to have stenosis of ≥50% and CIMT of >1.0 mm than those without (odds ratios [95% confidence intervals]=14.0 [1.8–106.5] and 5.3 [1.8–15.3], respectively; both P =0.001). For the six patients with stenosis of ≥70%, five had a bruit, and one (with a known total occlusion) did not (odds ratio=5.0 [0.6–42.8]; P =0.22). The sensitivity and specificity of carotid bruit for stenoses of ≥50% were 88% and 58%, respectively; respective values for stenoses of ≥70% were 83% and 52%. The equivalent negative predictive values were 96% and 98%, and positive predictive values were 30% and 10%, respectively. Conclusions: Electronic recording of carotid sounds for later interpretation is convenient and reliable. Most patients with stenoses had an overlying bruit. Most bruits were false positives, but ultrasonography is justified to document extent of disease; CIMT measurement will identify increased vascular risk in most of these patients. The absence of a bruit was rarely a false-negative finding, suggesting that these patients can usually be reassured that they do not have hemodynamically important stenosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Knapp et al. (2014) conducted a case-control in Diabetes (n=100). Carotid bruit detected by electronic auscultation vs. Normal carotid sounds (absence of bruit) was evaluated on Stenosis of ≥50% (OR 14.0, 95% CI 1.8-106.5, p=0.001). Presence of a carotid bruit detected by electronic auscultation in patients with diabetes was significantly associated with stenosis ≥50% (OR 14.0; 95% CI 1.8-106.5; P=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: