TABLE 4:
Diagnostic performance of various CT angiographic MPR analysis methods for assessment of degree of stenosis in carotid arteries compared with rotational angiography
| MPR Analysis Method | Observer | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Overall Accuracy (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-sectional | 1 | 65 (11/17) | 94 (15/16) | 79 (26/33) |
| 2 | 59 (10/17) | 94 (15/16) | 76 (25/33) | |
| Sagittal | 1 | 82 (14/17) | 88 (14/16) | 85 (28/33) |
| 2 | 65 (11/17) | 94 (15/16) | 79 (26/33) | |
| Combined* | 1 | 82 (14/17) | 88 (14/16) | 85 (28/33) |
| 2 | 71 (12/17) | 88 (14/16) | 79 (26/33) |
Note.—Numbers in parentheses are number of arteries. A 50% stenosis was the cutoff point for a hemodynamically significant finding.
*
Combined MPR was considered to be positive when either of the MPR (cross-sectional or oblique sagittal) measurements yielded a positive result.