Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Background: Accurate carotid imaging is important for effective secondary stroke prevention. Non-invasive imaging, now widely available, is replacing intra-arterial angiography for carotid stenosis, but the accuracy remains uncertain despite an extensive literature. We systematically reviewed the accuracy of non-invasive imaging compared with intra-arterial angiography for diagnosing carotid stenosis in patients with carotid territory ischaemic symptoms. Methods: We searched for articles published between 1980 and April 2004; included studies comparing non-invasive imaging with intra-arterial angiography that met Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) criteria; extracted data to calculate sensitivity and specificity of non-invasive imaging, to test for heterogeneity and to perform sensitivity analyses; and categorised percent stenosis by the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial (N ASCET) method. Results: In 41 included studies (2541 patients, 4876 arteries), contrast-enhanced MR angiography was more sensitive (0·94, 95% CI 0·88-0·97) and specific (0·93, 95% CI 0·89-0·96) for 70-99% stenosis than Doppler ultrasound, MR angiography, and CT angiography (sensitivities 0·89, 0·88, 0·76; specificities 0·84, 0·84, 0·94, respectively). Data for 50-69% stenoses and combinations of non-invasive tests were sparse and unreliable. There was heterogeneity between studies and evidence of publication bias. Interpretation: Non-invasive tests, used cautiously, could replace intra-arterial carotid angiography for 70-99% stenosis. However, more data are required to determine their accuracy, especially at 50-69% stenoses where the balance of risk and benefit for carotid endarterectomy is particularly narrow, and to explore and overcome heterogeneity. Methodology for evaluating imaging tests should be improved; blinded, prospective studies in clinically relevant patients are essential basic characteristics. © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68650-9

Type

Journal article

Journal

Lancet

Publication Date

06/05/2006

Volume

367

Pages

1503 - 1512