4.5 Article

The Relation of Carotid Calcium Volume with Carotid Artery Stenosis in Symptomatic Patients

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 7, Pages 1182-1187

Publisher

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2519

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Recent research showed a strong correlation of calcium volume scores with degree of stenosis, suggesting that calcium volume could be used in the diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis. We investigated the accuracy of the use of calcium) volume scores to diagnose carotid artery stenosis in our target population of recently symptomatic patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety symptomatic patients suspected of having carotid artery stenosis underwent CTA, resulting in images of 159 evaluable arteries. The correlation between calcium volume and degree of sterosis was calculated by using the Pearson correlation coefficient. With thresholds of 0.03 and 0.09 mL, we assessed the diagnostic performance of a calcium volume- based evaluation of sterosis for a previously reported stenosis cutoff of 40% ana for the clinically important cutoffs of 50% and 70%. RESULTS: In our patients series, the calcium volume score was not related to the stenosis degree on the symptomatic side (R = 0.04, P = .7) and was weakly related on the asymptomatic side (R = 0.29, P = .0051. The diagnostic accuracy of the calcium volume score to estimate 40% stenosis was relatively low: a sensitivity of 47% or 64% and a specificity of 52% or 82%, for the 0.09 and 0.03 mL thresholds, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy decreased with increasing degree of stenosis. CONCLUSIONS: We could not confirm the previously reported strong correlation of calcium volume with stenosis degree in our population of patients with recent neurologic symptoms. We conclude that in this particular domain, calcium volume cannot be used to estimate the degree of stenosis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available