Skip to main content
Log in

Measuring carotid artery stenosis

Comparison of postmortem arteriograms with the planimetric gold standard

  • ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION
  • Published:
Journal of Neurology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Five different calliper methods for assessing the degree of carotid artery stenosis and visual estimation (“eyeballing”) of postmortem carotid arteriograms were compared with the planimetric gold standard of the area reduction at the site of the stenosis.

Methods

During autopsy 53 carotid specimens were removed in toto from 31 neurological patients. Carotid arteries were ligated and redistended to a physiological degree for standardised three–plane arteriography. Afterwards, the entire specimen was filled with an embedding medium under the same conditions and sectioned. Slices at the site of stenoses were histologically processed. Computerised planimetric analysis of the lumen area reduction was performed and compared with the arteriographic findings. Arteriograms were evaluated by two independent observers by means of linear Common Carotid Artery (CC), the European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST) and the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET), and squared measurements (NASCET2, ECST2) after applying the πr2 function. Further, three independent observers performed eyeballing of the degree of stenosis from the postmortem arteriographies.

Results

Planimetry was carried out in 29 internal carotid artery (ICA) and 17 common carotid artery (CCA) stenoses ranging from 8.5 to 100%. The smallest mean differences of the degree of stenosis in % between planimetry and arteriography were –0.5 and 0.6%. The narrowest 95 %–limits of agreement covered a range of ±24.1 and 26.3% of stenoses, and the highest correlation coefficients were both 0.9 for the CC and ECST2 techniques, respectively. By eyeballing, the degree of stenosis was underestimated by 13.5 to 15.8% on average. The narrowest limits of agreement between two observers for eyeballing covered a range of 35%.

Conclusion

Three–plane arteriography has only a moderate accuracy and reproducibility in detecting and measuring carotid artery stenosis independent of the technique of measurement used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alexandrov AV, Bladin CF, Maggisano R, Norris JW (1993) Measuring Carotid Stenosis. Time for a Reappraisal. Stroke 24:1292–1296

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Croft RJ, Ellam LD, Harrison MJG (1980) Accuracy of carotid angiography in the assessment of atheroma of the internal carotid artery. Lancet 1(8176):997–1000

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eckstein HH,Winter R, Eichbaum M, Klemm K, Schumacher H, Dorfler A, Schulte K, Neuwirth A, Gross W, Schnabel P, Allenberg JR (2001) Grading of internal carotid artery stenosis: validation of Doppler/duplex ultrasound criteria and angiography against endarterectomy specimen. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 21:301–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Elgersma OE, Buijs PC, Wust AF, van der Graaf Y, Eikelboom BC, Mali WP (1999) Maximum internal carotid arterial stenosis: assessment with rotational angiography versus conventional intraarterial digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 213:777–783

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Eliasziw M, Smith RF, Singh N, Holdsworth DW, Fox AJ, Barnett HJM for the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) group (1994) Further comments on the measurement of carotid stenosis from angiograms. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) Group. Stroke 25:2445–2449

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Glaser JR, Glaser EM (1990) Neuron imaging with Neurolucida – a PCbased system for image combining microscopy. Comput Med Imaging Graph 14:307–317

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Goertler M, Widder B, Schuetz U (1996) Quantifying medium- and high-grade carotid artery stenosis by ultrasound. JEMU 17:235–239

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hankey GJ, Warlow CP, Sellar RJ (1990) Cerebral angiographic risk in mild cerebrovascular disease. Stroke 21:209–222

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lell M, Wildberger JE, Heuschmid M, Flohr T, Stiersdorfer K, Fellner FA, Lang W, Bautz WA, Baum U (2002) CT-angiography of the carotid artery: First results with a novel 16-slicespiral- CT scanner. Rofo Fortschr Röntgenstr 174:1165–1169 (English summary)

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ringelstein EB (1995) Skepticism toward carotid ultrasonography. A virtue, an attitude, or fanaticism? Stroke 26:1743–1746

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ringelstein EB (1997) Quantification of carotid stenosis: a fiction? In: Klingelhöfer J, Bartels E, Ringelstein EB (eds) New trends in cerebral hemodynamics and Neurosonology. Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam, pp 7–16

  13. Robless P, Bicknell C, Chataway J, Cheshire N, Wolfe J (2003) Stenosis and carotid endarterectomy. Lancet 361:1655

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Rothwell PM (2000) Analysis of agreement between measurements of continuous variables: general principles and lessons from studies of imaging of carotid stenosis. J Neurol 415:825–834

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rothwell PM, Eliasziw M, Gutnikov SA, Fox AJ, Taylor DW, Mayberg MR, Warlow CP, Barnett HJM for the Carotid Endarterectomy Trialists’ Collaboration (2003) Analysis of pooled data from the randomised controlled trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Lancet 361:107–116

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rothwell PM, Gibson RJ, Slatery J,Warlow CP, for the European Carotid Surgery Trialists’ Collaborative Group (1994) Prognostic value and reproducibility of measurements of carotid stenosis: a comparison of three methods on 1001 angiograms. Stroke 25:2440–2444

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rothwell PM, Warlow CP (1996) Making sense of the measurement of carotid stenosis. Cerebrovasc Dis 6:54–58

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schulte-Altedorneburg G, Droste DW, Kollár J,Hegedüs C,Gomba S, Ringelstein EB, Csiba L (2000) A novel method of macropathological and arteriographical examination of carotid specimens obtained from autopsy. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 23:312–314

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schulte-Altedorneburg G, Droste DW, Felszeghy S, Csiba L, Popa V, Hegedüs K, Kollár J, Módis, L, Ringelstein EB (2002) Detection of carotid artery stenosis by in-vivo duplex ultrasound: Correlation with planimetric measurements of the corresponding postmortem specimens. Stroke 33:2402–2407

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Staikov IN, Arnold M, Mattle HP, Remonda L, Sturzenegger M, Baumgartner RW, Schroth G (2000) Comparison of the ECST, CC, and NASCET grading methods and ultrasound for assessing carotid stenosis. J Neurol 247:681–686

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vanninen R, Manninen H, Koivisto K, Tulla H, Partanen K, Puranen M (1994) Carotid stenosis by digital subtraction angiography: reproducibility of the European Carotid Surgery trial and the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial measurement methods and visual interpretation. AJNR 15:1635–1641

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Willinsky RA, Taylor SM, terBrugge K, Farb RI, Tomlinson G, Montanera W (2003) Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography: prospective analysis of 2899 procedures and review of the literature. Radiology 227:522–528

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Young GR, Sandercock PAG, Humphrey PRD, Smith ETS, Brock L (1996) Observer variation in the interpretation of intraarterial angiograms and the risk of inappropriate decisions about carotid endarterectomy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 60:152–157

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Schulte-Altedorneburg MD.

Additional information

Drs. Schulte–Altedorneburg and Droste have contributed in the same way to the work as first authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schulte-Altedorneburg, G., Droste, D.W., Kollár, J. et al. Measuring carotid artery stenosis. J Neurol 252, 575–582 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-005-0703-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-005-0703-5

Key words

Navigation