The Common Carotid Artery in the Ultrasound Evaluation of Giant Cell Arteritis.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 RHEUMATOLOGY
JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-24 DOI:10.1097/RHU.0000000000002094
Charles Oshinsky, P Scott Pollock, Ingeborg Sacksen, Elizabeth Jernberg, R Eugene Zierler, Alison M Bays
{"title":"The Common Carotid Artery in the Ultrasound Evaluation of Giant Cell Arteritis.","authors":"Charles Oshinsky, P Scott Pollock, Ingeborg Sacksen, Elizabeth Jernberg, R Eugene Zierler, Alison M Bays","doi":"10.1097/RHU.0000000000002094","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Vascular ultrasound is commonly used to diagnose giant cell arteritis (GCA). Most protocols include the temporal arteries and axillary arteries, but it is unclear which other arteries should be included. This study investigated whether inclusion of intima media thickness (IMT) of the common carotid artery (CCA) in the ultrasound evaluation of GCA improves the accuracy of the examination.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We formed a fast-track clinic to use ultrasound to rapidly evaluate patients with suspected GCA. In this cohort study, patients referred for new concern for GCA received a vascular ultrasound for GCA with the temporal arteries and branches, the axillary artery, and CCA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We compared 57 patients with GCA and 86 patients without GCA. Three patients with GCA had isolated positive CCA between 1 and 1.49 mm, and 21 patients without GCA had isolated positive CCA IMT. At the 1.5-mm CCA cutoff, 4 patients without GCA had positive isolated CCA, and 1 patient with GCA had a positive isolated CCA. The sensitivity of ultrasound when adding carotid arteries to temporal and axillary arteries was 84.21% and specificity 65.12% at an intima media thickness (IMT) cutoff of ≥1 mm and 80.70% and 87.21%, respectively, at a cutoff of ≥1.5 mm.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Measurement of the CCA IMT rarely contributed to the diagnosis of GCA and increased the rate of false-positive results. Our data suggest that the CCA should be excluded in the initial vascular artery ultrasound protocol for diagnosing GCA. If included, an IMT cutoff of higher than 1.0 mm should be used.</p>","PeriodicalId":14745,"journal":{"name":"JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology","volume":" ","pages":"243-246"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/RHU.0000000000002094","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Vascular ultrasound is commonly used to diagnose giant cell arteritis (GCA). Most protocols include the temporal arteries and axillary arteries, but it is unclear which other arteries should be included. This study investigated whether inclusion of intima media thickness (IMT) of the common carotid artery (CCA) in the ultrasound evaluation of GCA improves the accuracy of the examination.

Methods: We formed a fast-track clinic to use ultrasound to rapidly evaluate patients with suspected GCA. In this cohort study, patients referred for new concern for GCA received a vascular ultrasound for GCA with the temporal arteries and branches, the axillary artery, and CCA.

Results: We compared 57 patients with GCA and 86 patients without GCA. Three patients with GCA had isolated positive CCA between 1 and 1.49 mm, and 21 patients without GCA had isolated positive CCA IMT. At the 1.5-mm CCA cutoff, 4 patients without GCA had positive isolated CCA, and 1 patient with GCA had a positive isolated CCA. The sensitivity of ultrasound when adding carotid arteries to temporal and axillary arteries was 84.21% and specificity 65.12% at an intima media thickness (IMT) cutoff of ≥1 mm and 80.70% and 87.21%, respectively, at a cutoff of ≥1.5 mm.

Conclusion: Measurement of the CCA IMT rarely contributed to the diagnosis of GCA and increased the rate of false-positive results. Our data suggest that the CCA should be excluded in the initial vascular artery ultrasound protocol for diagnosing GCA. If included, an IMT cutoff of higher than 1.0 mm should be used.

巨细胞动脉炎超声评估中的颈总动脉
目的:血管超声通常用于诊断巨细胞动脉炎(GCA)。大多数方案都包括颞动脉和腋动脉,但还不清楚还应包括哪些其他动脉。本研究探讨了将颈总动脉(CCA)内膜厚度(IMT)纳入 GCA 超声评估是否能提高检查的准确性:方法:我们成立了一个快速通道诊所,利用超声波对疑似 GCA 患者进行快速评估。在这项队列研究中,因新疑似 GCA 而转诊的患者接受了颞动脉及其分支、腋动脉和 CCA 的血管超声检查:我们对 57 名 GCA 患者和 86 名非 GCA 患者进行了比较。3 名 GCA 患者的 CCA 在 1 至 1.49 mm 之间呈孤立阳性,21 名非 GCA 患者的 CCA IMT 呈孤立阳性。在 1.5 毫米的 CCA 临界值上,4 名无 GCA 患者的孤立性 CCA 呈阳性,1 名 GCA 患者的孤立性 CCA 呈阳性。在颞动脉和腋动脉内膜厚度(IMT)临界值≥1毫米时,超声检查对颈动脉的敏感性为84.21%,特异性为65.12%,而在临界值≥1.5毫米时,敏感性和特异性分别为80.70%和87.21%:结论:CCA IMT 的测量很少有助于 GCA 的诊断,而且会增加假阳性结果的发生率。我们的数据表明,在诊断 GCA 的初始血管动脉超声方案中应排除 CCA。如果包括在内,则应使用高于 1.0 毫米的 IMT 临界值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
228
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology the peer-reviewed, bimonthly journal that rheumatologists asked for. Each issue contains practical information on patient care in a clinically oriented, easy-to-read format. Our commitment is to timely, relevant coverage of the topics and issues shaping current practice. We pack each issue with original articles, case reports, reviews, brief reports, expert commentary, letters to the editor, and more. This is where you''ll find the answers to tough patient management issues as well as the latest information about technological advances affecting your practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信