Key result
Common carotid artery volume flow rate measured by CVI-Q and Doppler method showed no difference in patients with 0-95% ICA stenosis, but Doppler yielded higher rates in 95-100% stenosis.
Why the study?
Does Color Velocity Imaging Quantification (CVI-Q) provide comparable common carotid artery volume flow rate measurements to the Doppler method in patients undergoing carotid duplex exams?
Population
34 patients/studies including those having clinical carotid duplex exams and healthy controls, with varying…
Comparison
Common carotid artery volume flow rate… vs Common carotid artery volume flow rate…
Design
Cross-sectional
Authors
Loading...
Supports interchangeable CVI-Q and Doppler use up to 95% ICA stenosis; leaves open validation in near-occlusion.
Observational (n=34)
Does Color Velocity Imaging Quantification (CVI-Q) provide comparable common carotid artery volume flow rate measurements to the Doppler method in patients undergoing carotid duplex exams?
Absolute Event Rate: 337% vs 359%
p-value: p=0.33
CVI-Q and Doppler methods provide comparable common carotid artery volume flow rate measurements in patients with up to 95% ICA stenosis, but diverge significantly in near-occlusion or occlusion.
Likittanasombut et al. (2006) conducted an observational in Carotid artery stenosis (n=34). Color Velocity Imaging Quantification (CVI-Q) vs. Doppler method (DM) was evaluated on Common carotid artery volume flow rate (mL/m) in patients without ICA stenosis (p=0.33). Common carotid artery volume flow rate measured by CVI-Q and Doppler method showed no difference in patients with 0-95% ICA stenosis, but Doppler yielded higher rates in 95-100% stenosis.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: