Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-559fc8cf4f-28jzs Total loading time: 0.362 Render date: 2021-03-01T04:53:44.558Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

NASCET Percent Stenosis Semi-Automated Versus Manual Measurement on CTA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 December 2014

Kevin Lian
Affiliation:
Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Jeremy H. White
Affiliation:
Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Eric S. Bartlett
Affiliation:
Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Aditya Bharatha
Affiliation:
Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Richard I. Aviv
Affiliation:
Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Allan J. Fox
Affiliation:
Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Sean P. Symons
Affiliation:
Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Medical Imaging, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Corresponding
E-mail address:
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

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.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2012

References

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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google ScholarPubMed
4Bartlett, ES, Walters, TD, Symons, SP, et al.Quantification of carotid stenosis on CT angiography. Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(1):1319.Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7Leclerc, X, Godefroy, O, Pruvo, JP, et al.Computed tomographic angiography for the evaluation of carotid artery stenosis. Stroke. 1995;26(9):157781.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.Google ScholarPubMed
13Fox, AJ.How to measure carotid stenosis. Radiology. 1993;186(2):31618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14Dix, JE, McNulty, BJ, Kalimes, DF.Frequency and significance of a small distal ICA in carotid stenosis. Am J Neuroradiol. 1998;19(7):121518.Google Scholar
15Bartlett, ES, Walters, TD, Symons, SP, et al.Diagnosing carotid stenosis near-occlusion by using CT angiography. Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(3):6327.Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 1
Total number of PDF views: 170 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 1st March 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Access

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
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *