Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry logoLink to Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry
. 2001 Aug;71(2):155–160. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.71.2.155

How does the degree of carotid stenosis affect the accuracy and interobserver variability of magnetic resonance angiography?

J Wardlaw 1, S Lewis 1, P Humphrey 1, G Young 1, D Collie 1, C Warlow 1
PMCID: PMC1737493  PMID: 11459885

Abstract

OBJECTIVES—The accuracy of magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) was determined in patients with recently symptomatic tight (80%-99%) carotid stenosis (on Doppler ultrasound), and the effect of stenosis severity on the accuracy and interobserver variability of MRA was studied.
METHODS—Forty four consecutive patients undergoing intra-arterial angiography (IAA) before carotid endarterectomy were prospectively studied, in two centres with identical MR scanners and sequences. All patients had undergone Doppler ultrasound, showing a 70% or worse carotid stenosis on the symptomatic side. MRA and IAA were done during the same admission. The MRA films were each independently and blindly read for percentage stenosis (signal gap if present) by four observers. The IA angiograms were read separately by one observer, blind to symptoms, and Doppler and MRA results.
RESULTS—Signal gaps on MRA were seen in stenoses ranging from 67% to 99% on intra-arterial angiography. Magnetic resonance angiograms consistently overestimated the percentage stenosis according to intra-arterial angiography. Clinically significant misclassification of stenosis occurred according to MRA in 7% of patients, and was more frequent as carotid stenosis increased.
CONCLUSION—Significant diagnostic errors occur with MRA in patients with tight carotid stenosis. Any morbidity occurring as a result of misclassification by MRA is likely to be offset by the avoidance of complications; however, this could only be determined with certainty in a randomised controlled trial.



Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (134.5 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Anderson C. M., Lee R. E., Levin D. L., de la Torre Alonso S., Saloner D. Measurement of internal carotid artery stenosis from source MR angiograms. Radiology. 1994 Oct;193(1):219–226. doi: 10.1148/radiology.193.1.8090894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Blakeley D. D., Oddone E. Z., Hasselblad V., Simel D. L., Matchar D. B. Noninvasive carotid artery testing. A meta-analytic review. Ann Intern Med. 1995 Mar 1;122(5):360–367. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-122-5-199503010-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hankey G. J., Warlow C. P., Sellar R. J. Cerebral angiographic risk in mild cerebrovascular disease. Stroke. 1990 Feb;21(2):209–222. doi: 10.1161/01.str.21.2.209. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Heiserman J. E., Zabramski J. M., Drayer B. P., Keller P. J. Clinical significance of the flow gap in carotid magnetic resonance angiography. J Neurosurg. 1996 Sep;85(3):384–387. doi: 10.3171/jns.1996.85.3.0384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kallmes D. F., Omary R. A., Dix J. E., Evans A. J., Hillman B. J. Specificity of MR angiography as a confirmatory test of carotid artery stenosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996 Sep;17(8):1501–1506. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Korogi Y., Takahashi M., Nakagawa T., Mabuchi N., Watabe T., Shiokawa Y., Shiga H., O'Uchi T., Miki H., Horikawa Y. Intracranial vascular stenosis and occlusion: MR angiographic findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1997 Jan;18(1):135–143. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Ransohoff D. F., Feinstein A. R. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1978 Oct 26;299(17):926–930. doi: 10.1056/NEJM197810262991705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Rothwell P. M., Gibson R. J., Slattery J., Warlow C. P. Prognostic value and reproducibility of measurements of carotid stenosis. A comparison of three methods on 1001 angiograms. European Carotid Surgery Trialists' Collaborative Group. Stroke. 1994 Dec;25(12):2440–2444. doi: 10.1161/01.str.25.12.2440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Whitty C. J., Sudlow C. L., Warlow C. P. Investigating individual subjects and screening populations for asymptomatic carotid stenosis can be harmful. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1998 May;64(5):619–623. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.64.5.619. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Young G. R., Humphrey P. R., Shaw M. D., Nixon T. E., Smith E. T. Comparison of magnetic resonance angiography, duplex ultrasound, and digital subtraction angiography in assessment of extracranial internal carotid artery stenosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1994 Dec;57(12):1466–1478. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.57.12.1466. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Young G. R., Sandercock P. A., Slattery J., Humphrey P. R., Smith E. T., Brock L. Observer variation in the interpretation of intra-arterial angiograms and the risk of inappropriate decisions about carotid endarterectomy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1996 Feb;60(2):152–157. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.60.2.152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES