Key result
Duplex scanning with continuous wave Doppler achieves 85% accuracy for detecting carotid stenosis versus angiography.
Why the study?
The accuracy of duplex scanning with continuous wave Doppler for evaluating carotid disease compared to angiography was assessed to determine its diagnostic utility.
Does duplex scanning with continuous wave Doppler accurately diagnose carotid disease compared to angiography in patients with carotid disease?
Observational (n=20)
Does duplex scanning with continuous wave Doppler accurately diagnose carotid disease compared to angiography in patients with carotid disease?
Duplex scanning with continuous wave Doppler provides high diagnostic accuracy for detecting and grading carotid stenosis compared to angiography.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support noninvasive carotid evaluation; hypothesis-generating and requires prospective validation before practice change.
Duplex scanning with the use of continuous wave Doppler instrumentation was used for the evaluation of carotid disease and compared to angiography. In twenty such patients 100% accuracy for diagnosis of total occlusion by Duplex scanning with continuous wave Doppler, was obtained. The sensitivity for those patients with 50%-99% stenosis was 92% and for those patients with 20%-49% stenosis was 75%. The overall accuracy for this diagnostic test for all groups of stenosis was 85%. This compares favorably with other noninvasive vascular techniques and is felt to be an accurate and useful technique for the detection of carotid stenosis. Several advantages of this technique are pointed out.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rush et al. (1985) conducted an observational in carotid disease (n=20). Duplex scanning with continuous wave Doppler vs. angiography was evaluated on overall accuracy for all groups of stenosis. Duplex scanning with continuous wave Doppler achieved an overall accuracy of 85% for detecting carotid stenosis when compared to angiography.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: