脑放射性同位素血管造影和定向多普勒超声诊断脑血管功能不全的可靠性。

G Marconi, G Nuzzaci, L Iacopetti, G P Chiriatti, S Briani, R Masi, A Faleri
{"title":"脑放射性同位素血管造影和定向多普勒超声诊断脑血管功能不全的可靠性。","authors":"G Marconi,&nbsp;G Nuzzaci,&nbsp;L Iacopetti,&nbsp;G P Chiriatti,&nbsp;S Briani,&nbsp;R Masi,&nbsp;A Faleri","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The diagnostic value of radioisotopic cerebral angioscintigraphy (R.A.) and of Doppler CW (D.C.W.) techniques to identify stenosis of the internal carotid artery in its extracranial course was studied in 97 patients with ischaemic lesions (50 T.I.A. and 47 Complete Stroke). The results of R.A. and D.C.W. were compared with those of contrast carotid-angiography (C.A.). C.A. revealed stenosis above 50% or complete occlusion in 22% of cases, whereas D.C.W. and R.A. showed flow reduction in 27% and 48% of the cases respectively. In T.I.A., C.A. positivity went down to 8%; D.C.W. to 16%; and R.A. to 34%. In \"Complete Stroke\" positivity was 36% for C.A.; 41% for D.C.W.; and 62% for R.A. There was a high number of false positive findings with D.C.W. (8) but even more with R.A. (27). False negative findings occurred only in two cases with R.A. These data confirm the diagnostic value of these two noninvasive techniques to identify haemodynamically carotid stenosis. The use of both methods can reduce error due to false negativity. The rather marked frequency of false positivity, particularly with reference to R.A. doesn't affect the diagnostic value of the two methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":21409,"journal":{"name":"Rivista di patologia nervosa e mentale","volume":"101 4","pages":"165-70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1981-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of cerebral radioisotopic angiography and of directional Doppler C.W. in the diagnosis of cerebrovascular insufficiency.\",\"authors\":\"G Marconi,&nbsp;G Nuzzaci,&nbsp;L Iacopetti,&nbsp;G P Chiriatti,&nbsp;S Briani,&nbsp;R Masi,&nbsp;A Faleri\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The diagnostic value of radioisotopic cerebral angioscintigraphy (R.A.) and of Doppler CW (D.C.W.) techniques to identify stenosis of the internal carotid artery in its extracranial course was studied in 97 patients with ischaemic lesions (50 T.I.A. and 47 Complete Stroke). The results of R.A. and D.C.W. were compared with those of contrast carotid-angiography (C.A.). C.A. revealed stenosis above 50% or complete occlusion in 22% of cases, whereas D.C.W. and R.A. showed flow reduction in 27% and 48% of the cases respectively. In T.I.A., C.A. positivity went down to 8%; D.C.W. to 16%; and R.A. to 34%. In \\\"Complete Stroke\\\" positivity was 36% for C.A.; 41% for D.C.W.; and 62% for R.A. There was a high number of false positive findings with D.C.W. (8) but even more with R.A. (27). False negative findings occurred only in two cases with R.A. These data confirm the diagnostic value of these two noninvasive techniques to identify haemodynamically carotid stenosis. The use of both methods can reduce error due to false negativity. The rather marked frequency of false positivity, particularly with reference to R.A. doesn't affect the diagnostic value of the two methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21409,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rivista di patologia nervosa e mentale\",\"volume\":\"101 4\",\"pages\":\"165-70\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1981-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rivista di patologia nervosa e mentale\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rivista di patologia nervosa e mentale","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对97例缺血性病变患者(50例完全性脑卒中和47例完全性脑卒中)进行了放射性同位素脑血管造影(R.A.)和多普勒连续波(D.C.W.)技术在颅内外过程中对颈内动脉狭窄的诊断价值的研究。将R.A.、d.c.w与颈动脉造影(c.a)结果进行比较。ca显示狭窄超过50%或完全闭塞的病例占22%,而dcw和ra分别显示血流减少的病例占27%和48%。在tia中,ca阳性下降到8%;D.C.W.降至16%;R.A.降至34%。在“完全中风”中,ca的阳性率为36%;D.C.W. 41%;D.C.W.的假阳性结果很高(8例),R.A.的假阳性结果更高(27例)。假阴性结果仅发生在两例ra患者中。这些数据证实了这两种非侵入性技术对血流动力学颈动脉狭窄的诊断价值。这两种方法的使用都可以减少由于假阴性引起的误差。假阳性的相当显著的频率,特别是参考R.A.不影响两种方法的诊断价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reliability of cerebral radioisotopic angiography and of directional Doppler C.W. in the diagnosis of cerebrovascular insufficiency.

The diagnostic value of radioisotopic cerebral angioscintigraphy (R.A.) and of Doppler CW (D.C.W.) techniques to identify stenosis of the internal carotid artery in its extracranial course was studied in 97 patients with ischaemic lesions (50 T.I.A. and 47 Complete Stroke). The results of R.A. and D.C.W. were compared with those of contrast carotid-angiography (C.A.). C.A. revealed stenosis above 50% or complete occlusion in 22% of cases, whereas D.C.W. and R.A. showed flow reduction in 27% and 48% of the cases respectively. In T.I.A., C.A. positivity went down to 8%; D.C.W. to 16%; and R.A. to 34%. In "Complete Stroke" positivity was 36% for C.A.; 41% for D.C.W.; and 62% for R.A. There was a high number of false positive findings with D.C.W. (8) but even more with R.A. (27). False negative findings occurred only in two cases with R.A. These data confirm the diagnostic value of these two noninvasive techniques to identify haemodynamically carotid stenosis. The use of both methods can reduce error due to false negativity. The rather marked frequency of false positivity, particularly with reference to R.A. doesn't affect the diagnostic value of the two methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信