Cargando…

Why are we still debating criteria for carotid artery stenosis?

The risk of new or recurrent stroke is high among patients with extracranial carotid artery stenosis and the benefit of carotid revascularization is associated to the degree of luminal stenosis. Catheter-based digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the diagnostic gold-standard for carotid stenosis...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Del Brutto, Victor J., Gornik, Heather L., Rundek, Tatjana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: AME Publishing Company 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7607093/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33178802
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-1188a
_version_ 1783604574357028864
author Del Brutto, Victor J.
Gornik, Heather L.
Rundek, Tatjana
author_facet Del Brutto, Victor J.
Gornik, Heather L.
Rundek, Tatjana
author_sort Del Brutto, Victor J.
collection PubMed
description The risk of new or recurrent stroke is high among patients with extracranial carotid artery stenosis and the benefit of carotid revascularization is associated to the degree of luminal stenosis. Catheter-based digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the diagnostic gold-standard for carotid stenosis (CS) has been replaced by non-invasive techniques including duplex ultrasound, computed-tomography angiography, and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). Duplex ultrasound is the primary noninvasive diagnostic tool for detecting, grading and monitoring of carotid artery stenosis due to its low cost, high resolution, and widespread availability. However, as discussed in this review, there is a wide range of practice patterns in use of ultrasound diagnostic criteria for carotid artery stenosis. To date, there is no internationally accepted standard for the gradation of CS. Discrepancies in ultrasound criteria may result in clinically relevant misclassification of disease severity leading to inappropriate referral, or lack of it, to revascularization procedures, and potential for consequential adverse outcome. The Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU), either as originally outlined or in a modified form, are the most common criteria applied. However, such criteria have received criticism for relying primarily on peak systolic velocities, a parameter that when used in isolation could be misleading. Recent proposals rely on a multiparametric approach in which the hemodynamic consequences of carotid narrowing beyond velocity augmentation are considered for an accurate stenosis classification. Consensus criteria would provide standardized parameters for the diagnosis of CS and considerably improve quality of care. Accrediting bodies around the world have called for consensus on unified criteria for diagnosis of CS. A healthy debate between professionals caring for patients with CS regarding optimal CS criteria still continues.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7607093
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher AME Publishing Company
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76070932020-11-10 Why are we still debating criteria for carotid artery stenosis? Del Brutto, Victor J. Gornik, Heather L. Rundek, Tatjana Ann Transl Med Review Article on Carotid Artery Stenosis and Stroke: Prevention and Treatment Part I The risk of new or recurrent stroke is high among patients with extracranial carotid artery stenosis and the benefit of carotid revascularization is associated to the degree of luminal stenosis. Catheter-based digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the diagnostic gold-standard for carotid stenosis (CS) has been replaced by non-invasive techniques including duplex ultrasound, computed-tomography angiography, and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). Duplex ultrasound is the primary noninvasive diagnostic tool for detecting, grading and monitoring of carotid artery stenosis due to its low cost, high resolution, and widespread availability. However, as discussed in this review, there is a wide range of practice patterns in use of ultrasound diagnostic criteria for carotid artery stenosis. To date, there is no internationally accepted standard for the gradation of CS. Discrepancies in ultrasound criteria may result in clinically relevant misclassification of disease severity leading to inappropriate referral, or lack of it, to revascularization procedures, and potential for consequential adverse outcome. The Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU), either as originally outlined or in a modified form, are the most common criteria applied. However, such criteria have received criticism for relying primarily on peak systolic velocities, a parameter that when used in isolation could be misleading. Recent proposals rely on a multiparametric approach in which the hemodynamic consequences of carotid narrowing beyond velocity augmentation are considered for an accurate stenosis classification. Consensus criteria would provide standardized parameters for the diagnosis of CS and considerably improve quality of care. Accrediting bodies around the world have called for consensus on unified criteria for diagnosis of CS. A healthy debate between professionals caring for patients with CS regarding optimal CS criteria still continues. AME Publishing Company 2020-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7607093/ /pubmed/33178802 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-1188a Text en 2020 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Review Article on Carotid Artery Stenosis and Stroke: Prevention and Treatment Part I
Del Brutto, Victor J.
Gornik, Heather L.
Rundek, Tatjana
Why are we still debating criteria for carotid artery stenosis?
title Why are we still debating criteria for carotid artery stenosis?
title_full Why are we still debating criteria for carotid artery stenosis?
title_fullStr Why are we still debating criteria for carotid artery stenosis?
title_full_unstemmed Why are we still debating criteria for carotid artery stenosis?
title_short Why are we still debating criteria for carotid artery stenosis?
title_sort why are we still debating criteria for carotid artery stenosis?
topic Review Article on Carotid Artery Stenosis and Stroke: Prevention and Treatment Part I
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7607093/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33178802
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/atm-20-1188a
work_keys_str_mv AT delbruttovictorj whyarewestilldebatingcriteriaforcarotidarterystenosis
AT gornikheatherl whyarewestilldebatingcriteriaforcarotidarterystenosis
AT rundektatjana whyarewestilldebatingcriteriaforcarotidarterystenosis