Accuracy and utility of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in planning carotid stenting

Carlos H. Timaran, Eric B. Rosero, R. James Valentine, J. Gregory Modrall, Stephen Smith, G. Patrick Clagett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) is a proven diagnostic tool for the evaluation of carotid stenosis; however, its utility in planning carotid artery stenting (CAS) has not been addressed. This study assessed the accuracy of three-dimensional CE-MRA as a noninvasive screening tool, compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA), for evaluating carotid and arch morphology before CAS. Methods: In a series of 96 CAS procedures during a 2-year period, CE-MRAs and DSAs with complete visualization from the aortic arch to the intracranial circulation were obtained before CAS in 60 patients. Four additional patients, initially considered potential candidates for CAS, were also evaluated with CE-MRA and DSA. The two-by-two table method, receiver operating characteristic curve, and Bland-Altman analyses were used to characterize the ability of CE-MRA to discriminate carotid and arch anatomy, suitability for CAS, and degree of carotid stenosis. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of CE-MRA were, respectively, 100% and 100% to determine CAS suitability, 87% and 100% to define aortic arch type, 93% and 100% to determine severe carotid tortuosity, and 75% and 98% to detect ulcerated plaques. CE-MRA had 87% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the detection of carotid stenosis ≥80%. The accuracy of CE MRA to determine optimal imaging angles and stent and embolic protection device sizes was >90%. The operative technique for CAS was altered because of the findings of preoperative CE-MRA in 22 procedures (38%). The most frequent change in the operative plan was the use of the telescoping technique in 11 cases (18%). CAS was aborted in four patients (5%) due to unfavorable anatomy identified on CE-MRA, including prohibitive internal carotid artery tortuosity (n = 1), long string sign of the internal carotid artery (n = 2), and concomitant intracranial disease (n = 1). Among patients considered suitable for CAS by CE-MRA, technical success was 100%, and the 30-day stroke/death rate was 1.6%. Conclusions: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the arch and carotid arteries is accurate in determining suitability for CAS and may alter the operative technique. Certain anatomic contraindications for CAS may be detected without DSA. Although CE-MRA is less accurate to estimate the degree of stenosis, it can accurately predict imaging angles, and stent and embolic protection device size, which may facilitate safe and expeditious CAS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)257-264
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Volume46
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2007

Fingerprint

Magnetic Resonance Angiography
Carotid Arteries
Digital Subtraction Angiography
Carotid Stenosis
Embolic Protection Devices
Internal Carotid Artery
Thoracic Aorta
Stents
Anatomy
Telescopes
Sensitivity and Specificity
ROC Curve
Pathologic Constriction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery

Cite this

Accuracy and utility of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in planning carotid stenting. / Timaran, Carlos H.; Rosero, Eric B.; Valentine, R. James; Modrall, J. Gregory; Smith, Stephen; Clagett, G. Patrick.

In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 46, No. 2, 08.2007, p. 257-264.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c4c7217eb16248dea8d74c4d6f4f10fa,
title = "Accuracy and utility of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in planning carotid stenting",
abstract = "Background: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) is a proven diagnostic tool for the evaluation of carotid stenosis; however, its utility in planning carotid artery stenting (CAS) has not been addressed. This study assessed the accuracy of three-dimensional CE-MRA as a noninvasive screening tool, compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA), for evaluating carotid and arch morphology before CAS. Methods: In a series of 96 CAS procedures during a 2-year period, CE-MRAs and DSAs with complete visualization from the aortic arch to the intracranial circulation were obtained before CAS in 60 patients. Four additional patients, initially considered potential candidates for CAS, were also evaluated with CE-MRA and DSA. The two-by-two table method, receiver operating characteristic curve, and Bland-Altman analyses were used to characterize the ability of CE-MRA to discriminate carotid and arch anatomy, suitability for CAS, and degree of carotid stenosis. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of CE-MRA were, respectively, 100{\%} and 100{\%} to determine CAS suitability, 87{\%} and 100{\%} to define aortic arch type, 93{\%} and 100{\%} to determine severe carotid tortuosity, and 75{\%} and 98{\%} to detect ulcerated plaques. CE-MRA had 87{\%} sensitivity and 100{\%} specificity for the detection of carotid stenosis ≥80{\%}. The accuracy of CE MRA to determine optimal imaging angles and stent and embolic protection device sizes was >90{\%}. The operative technique for CAS was altered because of the findings of preoperative CE-MRA in 22 procedures (38{\%}). The most frequent change in the operative plan was the use of the telescoping technique in 11 cases (18{\%}). CAS was aborted in four patients (5{\%}) due to unfavorable anatomy identified on CE-MRA, including prohibitive internal carotid artery tortuosity (n = 1), long string sign of the internal carotid artery (n = 2), and concomitant intracranial disease (n = 1). Among patients considered suitable for CAS by CE-MRA, technical success was 100{\%}, and the 30-day stroke/death rate was 1.6{\%}. Conclusions: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the arch and carotid arteries is accurate in determining suitability for CAS and may alter the operative technique. Certain anatomic contraindications for CAS may be detected without DSA. Although CE-MRA is less accurate to estimate the degree of stenosis, it can accurately predict imaging angles, and stent and embolic protection device size, which may facilitate safe and expeditious CAS.",
author = "Timaran, {Carlos H.} and Rosero, {Eric B.} and Valentine, {R. James} and Modrall, {J. Gregory} and Stephen Smith and Clagett, {G. Patrick}",
year = "2007",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/j.jvs.2007.03.051",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "46",
pages = "257--264",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy and utility of three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in planning carotid stenting

AU - Timaran, Carlos H.

AU - Rosero, Eric B.

AU - Valentine, R. James

AU - Modrall, J. Gregory

AU - Smith, Stephen

AU - Clagett, G. Patrick

PY - 2007/8

Y1 - 2007/8

N2 - Background: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) is a proven diagnostic tool for the evaluation of carotid stenosis; however, its utility in planning carotid artery stenting (CAS) has not been addressed. This study assessed the accuracy of three-dimensional CE-MRA as a noninvasive screening tool, compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA), for evaluating carotid and arch morphology before CAS. Methods: In a series of 96 CAS procedures during a 2-year period, CE-MRAs and DSAs with complete visualization from the aortic arch to the intracranial circulation were obtained before CAS in 60 patients. Four additional patients, initially considered potential candidates for CAS, were also evaluated with CE-MRA and DSA. The two-by-two table method, receiver operating characteristic curve, and Bland-Altman analyses were used to characterize the ability of CE-MRA to discriminate carotid and arch anatomy, suitability for CAS, and degree of carotid stenosis. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of CE-MRA were, respectively, 100% and 100% to determine CAS suitability, 87% and 100% to define aortic arch type, 93% and 100% to determine severe carotid tortuosity, and 75% and 98% to detect ulcerated plaques. CE-MRA had 87% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the detection of carotid stenosis ≥80%. The accuracy of CE MRA to determine optimal imaging angles and stent and embolic protection device sizes was >90%. The operative technique for CAS was altered because of the findings of preoperative CE-MRA in 22 procedures (38%). The most frequent change in the operative plan was the use of the telescoping technique in 11 cases (18%). CAS was aborted in four patients (5%) due to unfavorable anatomy identified on CE-MRA, including prohibitive internal carotid artery tortuosity (n = 1), long string sign of the internal carotid artery (n = 2), and concomitant intracranial disease (n = 1). Among patients considered suitable for CAS by CE-MRA, technical success was 100%, and the 30-day stroke/death rate was 1.6%. Conclusions: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the arch and carotid arteries is accurate in determining suitability for CAS and may alter the operative technique. Certain anatomic contraindications for CAS may be detected without DSA. Although CE-MRA is less accurate to estimate the degree of stenosis, it can accurately predict imaging angles, and stent and embolic protection device size, which may facilitate safe and expeditious CAS.

AB - Background: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) is a proven diagnostic tool for the evaluation of carotid stenosis; however, its utility in planning carotid artery stenting (CAS) has not been addressed. This study assessed the accuracy of three-dimensional CE-MRA as a noninvasive screening tool, compared with digital subtraction angiography (DSA), for evaluating carotid and arch morphology before CAS. Methods: In a series of 96 CAS procedures during a 2-year period, CE-MRAs and DSAs with complete visualization from the aortic arch to the intracranial circulation were obtained before CAS in 60 patients. Four additional patients, initially considered potential candidates for CAS, were also evaluated with CE-MRA and DSA. The two-by-two table method, receiver operating characteristic curve, and Bland-Altman analyses were used to characterize the ability of CE-MRA to discriminate carotid and arch anatomy, suitability for CAS, and degree of carotid stenosis. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of CE-MRA were, respectively, 100% and 100% to determine CAS suitability, 87% and 100% to define aortic arch type, 93% and 100% to determine severe carotid tortuosity, and 75% and 98% to detect ulcerated plaques. CE-MRA had 87% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the detection of carotid stenosis ≥80%. The accuracy of CE MRA to determine optimal imaging angles and stent and embolic protection device sizes was >90%. The operative technique for CAS was altered because of the findings of preoperative CE-MRA in 22 procedures (38%). The most frequent change in the operative plan was the use of the telescoping technique in 11 cases (18%). CAS was aborted in four patients (5%) due to unfavorable anatomy identified on CE-MRA, including prohibitive internal carotid artery tortuosity (n = 1), long string sign of the internal carotid artery (n = 2), and concomitant intracranial disease (n = 1). Among patients considered suitable for CAS by CE-MRA, technical success was 100%, and the 30-day stroke/death rate was 1.6%. Conclusions: Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the arch and carotid arteries is accurate in determining suitability for CAS and may alter the operative technique. Certain anatomic contraindications for CAS may be detected without DSA. Although CE-MRA is less accurate to estimate the degree of stenosis, it can accurately predict imaging angles, and stent and embolic protection device size, which may facilitate safe and expeditious CAS.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34547096283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34547096283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.03.051

DO - 10.1016/j.jvs.2007.03.051

M3 - Article

C2 - 17600659

AN - SCOPUS:34547096283

VL - 46

SP - 257

EP - 264

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

IS - 2

ER -