PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Marja Berg
AU  - Zishu Zhang
AU  - Aki Ikonen
AU  - Petri Sipola
AU  - Reetta Kälviäinen
AU  - Hannu Manninen
AU  - Ritva Vanninen
TI  - Multi-Detector Row CT Angiography in the Assessment of Carotid Artery Disease in Symptomatic Patients: Comparison with Rotational Angiography and Digital Subtraction Angiography
DP  - 2005 May 01
TA  - American Journal of Neuroradiology
PG  - 1022--1034
VI  - 26
IP  - 5
4099  - http://www.ajnr.org/content/26/5/1022.short
4100  - http://www.ajnr.org/content/26/5/1022.full
SO  - Am. J. Neuroradiol.2005 May 01; 26
AB  - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Compared with the single-detector technique, multi-detector row CT angiography permits larger anatomic coverage that includes both the epiaortic and entire carotid circulations. We evaluated the accuracy of multi-detector row CT angiography by using multiplanar reformation (MPR) for measuring carotid artery diameters compared with that of rotational angiography. We also evaluated the diagnostic performance of CT angiography compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA).METHODS: In 35 patients, CT angiograms of 70 carotid arteries were compared with DSA images, and CT angiograms of 33 carotid arteries were compared with rotational angiograms. CT angiographic interpretation was performed first interactively at a workstation. Diameter measurements of normal and stenosed carotid arteries were performed on cross-sectional and oblique sagittal MPRs. Degree of stenosis was calculated per North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial criteria independently by two observers for each technique.RESULTS: Degree of stenosis was slightly underestimated with CT angiography, with mean differences (± SD) per observer of 6.9 ± 17.6% and 10.7 ± 16.1% for cross-sectional and 2.8 ± 19.2% and 9.1 ± 16.8% for oblique sagittal MPRs compared with rotational angiography. CT angiography was somewhat inaccurate for measuring the absolute minimal diameter of high-grade stenoses. On symptomatic sides (n = 35), interactive CT angiographic interpretation combined with MPR measurements for lesions with a visual estimate of 50% or greater stenosis achieved a sensitivity of 95% (20/21) and specificity of 93% (13/14) in the detection of carotid stenosis (≥ 50%) verified with DSA.CONCLUSION: Regardless of slight underestimation of carotid stenosis with CT angiography compared with rotational angiography, diagnostic performance of CT angiography with interactive interpretation proved to be good. Also, the method is highly sensitive for detection of carotid artery stenosis, indicating the suitability of CT angiography as a screening method for symptomatic patients. For hemodynamically significant stenoses revealed by CT angiographic screening, conventional angiography still seems to be necessary.