Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

NASCET Percent Stenosis Semi-Automated Versus Manual Measurement on CTA

  • Kevin Lian (a1), Jeremy H. White (a1), Eric S. Bartlett (a1), Aditya Bharatha (a1), Richard I. Aviv (a1), Allan J. Fox (a1) and Sean P. Symons (a1)...

Abstract

Purpose:

To compare North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (NASCET) stenosis values and NASCET grade categorization (mild, moderate, severe) of semi-automated vessel analysis software versus manual measurements on computed tomography angiography (CTA).

Methods:

There were four observers. Two independently analyzed 81 carotid artery CTAs using semi-automated vessel analysis software according to a blinded protocol. The software measured the narrowest stenosis in millimeters (mm), distal internal carotid artery (ICA) in mm, and calculated percent stenosis based on NASCET criteria. One of these two observers performed this task twice on each carotid, the second analysis was delayed two months in order to mitigate recall bias. Two other observers manually measured the narrowest stenosis in mm, distal ICA in mm, and calculated NASCET percent stenosis in a blinded fashion. The calculated NASCET stenoses were categorized into mild, moderate, or severe. Chi square and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to test for statistical differences.

Results:

ANOVA did not find a statistically significant difference in the mean percent stenosis when comparing the two manual measurements, the two semi-automated measurements, and the repeat semi-automated. Chi square demonstrated that the distribution of grades of stenosis were statistically different (p<0.05) between the manual and semiautomated grades. Semi-automated vessel analysis tended to underestimate the degree of stenosis compared to manual measurement.

Conclusion:

The mean percentage stenosis determined by semi-automated vessel analysis is not significantly different from manual measurement. However, when the data is categorized into mild, moderate and severe stenosis, there is a significant difference between semi-automated and manual measurements. The semi-automated software tends to underestimate the stenosis grade compared to manual measurement.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      NASCET Percent Stenosis Semi-Automated Versus Manual Measurement on CTA
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      NASCET Percent Stenosis Semi-Automated Versus Manual Measurement on CTA
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      NASCET Percent Stenosis Semi-Automated Versus Manual Measurement on CTA
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Medical Imaging, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, AG31D, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4N 3M5. Email: sean.symons@sunnybrook.ca

References

Hide All
1North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:44553.
2Rothwell, PM, Eliasziw, M, Gutnikov, SA, et al.Analysis of pooled data from the randomized controlled trials of endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Lancet. 2003;361(9352):10716.
3Levinson, MM, Rodriguez, DI.Endarterectomy for preventing stroke in symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid stenosis: review of clinical trials and recommendations for surgical therapy. Heart Surg Forum. 1999;2(2):14768.
4Bartlett, ES, Walters, TD, Symons, SP, et al.Quantification of carotid stenosis on CT angiography. Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(1):1319.
5Anderson, GB, Ashforth, R, Steinke, DE, et al.CT angiography for the detection and characterization of carotid artery bifurcation disease. Stroke. 2000;31(9):216874.
6Randoux, B, Marro, B, Koskas, F, et al.Carotid artery stenosis: prospective comparison of CT, three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR, and conventional angiography. Radiology. 2001;220(1):17985.
7Leclerc, X, Godefroy, O, Pruvo, JP, et al.Computed tomographic angiography for the evaluation of carotid artery stenosis. Stroke. 1995;26(9):157781.
8Zhang, Z, Berg, M, Ikonen, A, et al.Carotid stenosis degree in CT angiography: assessment based on luminal area versus luminal diameter measurements. Eur Radiol. 2005;15(11):235965.
9Zhang, Z, Berg, MH, Ikonen, AE, et al.Carotid artery stenosis: reproducibility of automated 3D CT angiography analysis method. Eur Radiol. 2004;14(4):66572.
10Silvennoinen, HM, Ikonen, S, Soinne, L, et al.CT angiographic analysis of carotid artery stenosis: comparison of manual assessment, semiautomatic vessel analysis, and digital subtraction angiography. Am J Neuroradiol. 2007;28(1):97103.
11White, JR, Bartlett, ES, Bharatha, A, et al.Reproducibility of semiautomated measurement of carotid stenosis on CTA. Can J Neuro Sci. 2010;37(4):498503.
12Fox, AJ, Eliasziw, M, Rothwell, PM, et al.Identification, prognosis, and management of patients with carotid artery near occlusion. Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(8):208694.
13Fox, AJ.How to measure carotid stenosis. Radiology. 1993;186(2):31618.
14Dix, JE, McNulty, BJ, Kalimes, DF.Frequency and significance of a small distal ICA in carotid stenosis. Am J Neuroradiol. 1998;19(7):121518.
15Bartlett, ES, Walters, TD, Symons, SP, et al.Diagnosing carotid stenosis near-occlusion by using CT angiography. Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(3):6327.
16Bucek, RA, Puchner, S, Kanitsar, A, et al.Automated CTA quantification of internal carotid artery stenosis: a pilot trial. J Endovasc Ther. 2007;14:706.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed