Table 2:

Mean difference in stenosis values and 95% CI of all symptomatic stenoses for the different techniques

TechniqueAll ExaminationsExclusion of 90% and 95% Stenoses*
Difference (%)95% CIDifference (%)95% CI
CE-MIP vs CE-MPR2.9−0.5–6.22.4−1.1–5.8
CE-VR vs CE-MPR7.23.9––10.5
TOF-MIP vs TOF-MPR0.4−2.9–3.8−0.2−3.6–3.3
TOF-VR vs TOF-MPR2.6−0.8–6.02.4−1.0–5.9
CE-MPR vs TOF-MPR−1.9−5.2–1.5−1.5−5.0–1.9
CE-MIP vs TOF-MIP0.6−2.7–4.01.0−2.4–4.5
CE-VR vs TOF-VR2.8−0.6–6.13.1−0.3–6.6
  • Note:—VR indicates volume-rendering; CE, contrast enhanced; MIP, maximum intensity projection; MPR, multiplanar reformation; TOF, time of flight.

  • * Cases of local signal loss were assigned as 90% stenosis; cases of near-occlusion, as 95% stenosis. Exclusion of these cases had no relevant influence on the results.