Can duplex ultrasonography select appropriate patients for carotid endarterectomy?

Duplex ultrasound for diagnosing symptomatic carotid stenosis in the extracranial segments

BACKGROUND

Carotid artery stenosis is an important cause of stroke and transient ischemic attack. Correctly and rapidly identifying patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis is essential for adequate treatment with early cerebral revascularization. Doubts about the diagnostic value regarding the accuracy of duplex ultrasound (DUS) and the possibility of using DUS as the single diagnostic test before carotid revascularization are still debated.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the accuracy of DUS in individuals with symptomatic carotid stenosis verified by either digital subtraction angiography (DSA), computed tomography angiography (CTA), or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CRDTAS, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science, HTA, DARE, and LILACS up to 15 February 2021. We handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and other relevant publications and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies or unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies assessing DUS accuracy against an acceptable reference standard (DSA, MRA, or CTA) in symptomatic patients. We considered the classification of carotid stenosis with DUS defined with validated duplex velocity criteria, and the NASCET criteria for carotid stenosis measures on DSA, MRA, and CTA. We excluded studies that included < 70% of symptomatic patients; the time between the index test and the reference standard was longer than four weeks or not described, or that presented no objective criteria to estimate carotid stenosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The review authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain list. We extracted data with an effort to complete a 2 × 2 table (true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives) for each of the different categories of carotid stenosis and reference standards. We produced forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots to summarize the data. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used a bivariate meta-analysis model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 25,087 unique studies, of which 22 were deemed eligible for inclusion (4957 carotid arteries). The risk of bias varied considerably across the studies, and studies were generally of moderate to low quality. We narratively described the results without meta-analysis in seven studies in which the criteria used to determine stenosis were too different from the duplex velocity criteria proposed in our protocol or studies that provided insufficient data to complete a 2 × 2 table for at least in one category of stenosis. Nine studies (2770 carotid arteries) presented DUS versus DSA results for 70% to 99% carotid artery stenosis, and two (685 carotid arteries) presented results from DUS versus CTA in this category. Seven studies presented results for occlusion with DSA as the reference standard and three with CTA as the reference standard. Five studies compared DUS versus DSA for 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis. Only one study presented results from 50% to 69% carotid artery stenosis. For DUS versus DSA, for < 50% carotid artery stenosis, the summary sensitivity was 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48 to 0.76) and the summary specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99); for the 50% to 69% range, only one study was included and meta-analysis not performed; for the 50% to 99% range, the summary sensitivity was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98) and the summary specificity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.73); for the 70% to 99% range, the summary sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.91) and the summary specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90); for occlusion, the summary sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97) and the summary specificity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.99). For sensitivity analyses, excluding studies in which participants were selected based on the presence of occlusion on DUS had an impact on specificity: 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99). For DUS versus CTA, we found two studies in the range of 70% to 99%; the sensitivity varied from 0.57 to 0.94 and the specificity varied from 0.87 to 0.98. For occlusion, the summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.99) and the summary specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.99). For DUS versus MRA, there was one study with results for 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis, with a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98) and specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.95); in the 70% to 99% range, two studies were included, with sensitivity that varied from 0.54 to 0.99 and specificity that varied from 0.78 to 0.89. We could perform only a few of the proposed sensitivity analyses because of the small number of studies included.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence that the diagnostic accuracy of DUS is high, especially at discriminating between the presence or absence of significant carotid artery stenosis (< 50% or 50% to 99%). This evidence, plus its less invasive nature, supports the early use of DUS for the detection of carotid artery stenosis. The accuracy for 70% to 99% carotid artery stenosis and occlusion is high. Clinicians should exercise caution when using DUS as the single preoperative diagnostic method, and the limitations should be considered. There was little evidence of the accuracy of DUS when compared with CTA or MRA. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution because they are based on studies of low methodological quality, mainly due to the patient selection method. Methodological problems in participant inclusion criteria from the studies discussed above apparently influenced an overestimated estimate of prevalence values. Most of the studies included failed to precisely describe inclusion criteria and previous testing. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should include direct comparisons of the various modalities of diagnostic tests (mainly DUS, CTA, and MRA) for carotid artery stenosis since DSA is no longer considered to be the best method for diagnosing carotid stenosis and less invasive tests are now used as reference standards in clinical practice. Also, for future studies, the participant inclusion criteria require careful attention.

Carotid Endarterectomy Based on Duplex Ultrasonography: A Safe Approach Associated with Long-term Stroke Prevention

To evaluate the short-term and long-term safety of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) based on duplex ultrasound without confirmatory diagnostic arteriography.

A 4-year retrospective review of CEA based on duplex ultrasound alone (n = 653) or with confirmatory arteriography (n = 118) was performed in 244 women and 458 men whose ages ranged from 39 to 92 years (mean, 70 years). Practice patterns, perioperative morbidity, and stroke rate (life-table analysis) of a community-based and university- based vascular surgical practice were analyzed and compared.

Surgical intervention based on duplex ultrasound was judged possible in 85% of the patients (community, 93%; university, 55%). Indications for arteriography included: testing completed prior to surgical consultation (44%), nonfocal extracranial carotid stenosis (23%), nonhemispheric symptoms (13%), and prior stroke (9%). This approach was safe (with a combined operative mortality and neurologic morbidity of 1.8%), asso ciated with long-term stroke prevention (a 95% stroke-free survival at 4 years), and yielded results similar to CEA with arteriography (operative morbidity, 2.6%; 91% stroke- free survival). The incidence and nature of late neurologic deficits were similar after CEA with and without arteriography. Twenty-three (4%) of the patients who underwent CEA based on duplex ultrasound developed late neurologic symptoms including 9 contralat eral and 4 ipsilateral strokes; and 4 ipsilateral and 4 contralateral transient ischemic attacks (TIAs). Cardiac embolism from atrial fibrillation accounted for 6 strokes, lacunar infarct associated with hypertension (3 strokes), intracranial atherosclerosis (3 strokes), and contralateral internal carotid artery (ICA) occlusion (1 stroke). Forty patients (6.8%) died predominantly from cardiac events. After CEA with arteriography 6 (5%) of the patients died. Six late strokes (4 contralateral, and 2 ipsilateral hemisphere) occurred as a result of progressive, untreated ICA stenosis (n = 3), and lacunar infarct (n = 3). Overall, 11% of the patients underwent contralateral CEA for progressive ICA stenosis.

CEA, based on duplex scanning, is safe and applicable for the majority of patients undergoing surgical evaluation. Short-term and long-term outcomes were similar to outcomes in patients having CEA based on diagnostic arteriography.

Duplex Ultrasound Verified by Angiography in Patients with Severe Primary and Restenosis of Internal Carotid Artery

There are very limited data in the literature about the reliability of duplex ultrasound (DU) verified by angiography in patients with restenosis of the internal carotid artery (ICA) after carotid surgery compared with primary carotid artery stenosis patients. Our objective was to compare the reliability of DU verified by conventional angiography in the diagnosis of severe primary stenosis versus restenosis of ICA. One hundred thirty-four patients (238 arteries) were examined by both DU and angiography. Severe stenosis (>70%) was found in 47 primary stenotic arteries and in 70 restenotic arteries. Accuracy, specificity, sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value were obtained for basic DU criteria after verification of ultrasound data by angiography. The best accuracy for detection of >70% stenosis by end diastolic velocity was found for the velocity of 70 cm/sec or more in both groups, but accuracy for the restenosis group was significantly higher (96.9% vs. 89.8%, p = 0.025). Additionally, specificity (p = 0.01) and PPV (p = 0.01) were significantly higher in the restenosis group. The best accuracy for detection of >70% stenosis by peak systolic velocity was found for the velocity of 220 cm/sec or more for restenoses and 200 cm/sec or more for primary stenoses. The accuracy of the ultrasound was significantly higher in the restenosis group (94.6% vs. 87%, p = 0.04), as were specificity (p = 0.01) and PPV (p = 0.02). The diagnosis of severe restenosis by DU is reliable and can be used for decision making regarding surgery or stenting without angiography. In patients with Doppler parameters pointing to borderline moderate/severe primary carotid stenosis and technically complicated cases, angiography in addition to sonography before surgery is recommended.

Duplex ultrasound and magnetic resonance angiography compared with digital subtraction angiography in carotid artery stenosis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The purpose of this work was to review and compare published data on the diagnostic value of duplex ultrasonography (DUS), MR angiography (MRA), and conventional digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for the diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of published studies retrieved through PUBMED, from bibliographies of review papers, and from experts. The English-language medical literature was searched for studies that met the selection criteria: (1) The study was published between 1994 and 2001; (2) MRA and/or DUS was performed to estimate the severity of carotid artery stenosis; (3) DSA was used as the standard of reference; and (4) the absolute numbers of true positives, false negatives, true negatives, and false positives were available or derivable for at least one definition of disease (degree of stenosis).

RESULTS

Sixty-three publications on duplex, MRA, or both were included in the analysis, yielding the test results of 64 different patient series on DUS and 21 on MRA. For the diagnosis of 70% to 99% versus <70% stenosis, MRA had a pooled sensitivity of 95% (95% CI, 92 to 97) and a pooled specificity of 90% (95% CI, 86 to 93). These numbers were 86% (95% CI, 84 to 89) and 87% (95% CI, 84 to 90) for DUS, respectively. For recognizing occlusion, MRA yielded a sensitivity of 98% (95% CI, 94 to 100) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 99 to 100), and DUS had a sensitivity of 96% (95% CI, 94 to 98) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 99 to 100). A multivariable summary receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis for diagnosing 70% to 99% stenosis demonstrated that the type of MR scanner predicted the performance of MRA, whereas the presence of verification bias predicted the performance of DUS. For diagnosing occlusion, no significant heterogeneity was found for MRA; for DUS, the presence of verification bias and type of DUS scanner were explanatory variables. MRA had a significantly better discriminatory power than DUS in diagnosing 70% to 99% stenosis (regression coefficient, 1.6; 95% CI, 0.37 to 2.77). No significant difference was found in detecting occlusion (regression coefficient, 0.73; 95% CI, -2.06 to 3.51).

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that MRA has a better discriminatory power compared with DUS in diagnosing 70% to 99% stenosis and is a sensitive and specific test compared with DSA in the evaluation of carotid artery stenosis. For detecting occlusion, both DUS and MRA are very accurate.

Cost-effective carotid endarterectomy

BACKGROUND

Although carotid endarterectomy is increasing in the UK, there is evidence that the procedure is still underused. Methods of reducing cost in a single vascular unit have been assessed using a continuous audit including outcome measures.

METHODS

A consecutive series of 333 patients admitted over 7 years under a single consultant surgeon were studied. Outcome measures included the rate of perioperative neurological complication of any kind, and death. The length of hospital stay and the number of readmissions within 30 days were recorded prospectively by computerized audit.

RESULTS

Over the interval of the study, the number of preoperative investigations was reduced; angiography and cerebral computed tomography were reserved for specific indications. The median duration of hospital stay decreased from 7 to 2 days. There was no change in the stroke and death rate (3 per cent) during the study and only two patients required readmission within 30 days.

CONCLUSION

Carotid endarterectomy can be performed cost-effectively using non-invasive preoperative investigations for the majority of patients. In-hospital stay has been reduced and the routine use of intensive care replaced by a 2-h stay in theatre recovery. These changes have been achieved without compromising patient safety.