Comparative diagnostic value of carotid colour Doppler ultrasound and carotid magnetic resonance angiography in detecting carotid artery stenosis.

IF 2.3
Medical ultrasonography Pub Date : 2026-09-23 Epub Date: 2026-02-12 DOI:10.11152/mu-4590
Wei Li, Jin Wang, Yuanyuan Zhu, Jie Liu
{"title":"Comparative diagnostic value of carotid colour Doppler ultrasound and carotid magnetic resonance angiography in detecting carotid artery stenosis.","authors":"Wei Li, Jin Wang, Yuanyuan Zhu, Jie Liu","doi":"10.11152/mu-4590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To compare the diagnostic value of carotid colour Doppler ultrasound (CDO) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in detecting carotid vascular stenosis, using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the gold standard.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A total of 120 patients admitted between January 2022 and December 2024 were divided into two groups of 60 based on the initial imaging modality. The CDO group underwent carotid CDO followed by DSA for suspected stenosis, while the MRA group received MRA first, with DSA performed for confirmed cases. DSA served as the reference standard. Stenosis severity was graded using NASCET criteria, and sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and agreement (Kappa) with DSA were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>CDO showed excellent agreement with DSA (Kappa = 0.823), with 97.67% sensitivity, 88.24% specificity and 95.00% accuracy, demonstrating high consistency across all stenosis grades and occlusion. MRA showed moderate agreement with DSA (Kappa = 0.657), achieving 97.30% sensitivity, 65.22% specificity and 85.00% accuracy, with notable overestimation in mild stenosis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both CDO and MRA are valuable non-invasive tools for evaluating carotid vascular stenosis. CDO is simple, cost-effective and suitable for large-scale screening, whereas MRA provides detailed vascular anatomy and is better suited for confirmatory assessment of complex lesions. Appropriate selection or combined use can improve diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":94138,"journal":{"name":"Medical ultrasonography","volume":" ","pages":"271-276"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical ultrasonography","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11152/mu-4590","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: To compare the diagnostic value of carotid colour Doppler ultrasound (CDO) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) in detecting carotid vascular stenosis, using digital subtraction angiography (DSA) as the gold standard.

Materials and methods: A total of 120 patients admitted between January 2022 and December 2024 were divided into two groups of 60 based on the initial imaging modality. The CDO group underwent carotid CDO followed by DSA for suspected stenosis, while the MRA group received MRA first, with DSA performed for confirmed cases. DSA served as the reference standard. Stenosis severity was graded using NASCET criteria, and sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and agreement (Kappa) with DSA were calculated.

Results: CDO showed excellent agreement with DSA (Kappa = 0.823), with 97.67% sensitivity, 88.24% specificity and 95.00% accuracy, demonstrating high consistency across all stenosis grades and occlusion. MRA showed moderate agreement with DSA (Kappa = 0.657), achieving 97.30% sensitivity, 65.22% specificity and 85.00% accuracy, with notable overestimation in mild stenosis.

Conclusion: Both CDO and MRA are valuable non-invasive tools for evaluating carotid vascular stenosis. CDO is simple, cost-effective and suitable for large-scale screening, whereas MRA provides detailed vascular anatomy and is better suited for confirmatory assessment of complex lesions. Appropriate selection or combined use can improve diagnostic accuracy and clinical decision-making.

颈动脉彩色多普勒超声与颈动脉磁共振血管造影对颈动脉狭窄的诊断价值比较。
目的:以数字减影血管造影(DSA)为金标准,比较颈动脉彩色多普勒超声(CDO)与磁共振血管造影(MRA)对颈动脉血管狭窄的诊断价值。材料与方法:将2022年1月至2024年12月收治的120例患者根据初始成像方式分为两组,每组60例。CDO组对疑似狭窄行颈动脉CDO后行DSA, MRA组先行MRA,确诊者行DSA。DSA作为参考标准。使用NASCET标准对狭窄程度进行分级,并计算DSA的敏感性、特异性、准确性和一致性(Kappa)。结果:CDO与DSA表现出极好的一致性(Kappa = 0.823),敏感性97.67%,特异性88.24%,准确性95.00%,在所有狭窄等级和闭塞情况下均表现出高度一致性。MRA与DSA的一致性中等(Kappa = 0.657),敏感性97.30%,特异性65.22%,准确性85.00%,轻度狭窄有明显的高估。结论:CDO和MRA都是评价颈动脉血管狭窄的有价值的无创工具。CDO简单、经济、适合大规模筛查,而MRA提供详细的血管解剖,更适合对复杂病变进行确认性评估。适当选择或联合使用可提高诊断准确性和临床决策。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书