Ultrasonography Grading of Internal Carotid Artery Disease: Multiparametric German Society of Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM) versus Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) Consensus Criteria

Abstract

Purpose We sought to determine the diagnostic agreement between the revised ultrasonography approach by the German Society of Ultrasound in Medicine (DEGUM) and the established Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) consensus criteria for the grading of carotid artery disease.

Materials and Methods Post-hoc analysis of a prospective multicenter study, in which patients underwent ultrasonography and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) of carotid arteries for validation of the DEGUM approach. According to DEGUM and SRU ultrasonography criteria, carotid arteries were independently categorized into clinically relevant NASCET strata (normal, mild [1–49 %], moderate [50–69 %], severe [70–99 %], occlusion). On DSA, carotid artery findings according to NASCET were considered the reference standard.

Results We analyzed 158 ultrasonography and DSA carotid artery pairs. There was substantial agreement between both ultrasonography approaches for severe (κw 0.76, CI95 %: 0.66–0.86), but only fair agreement for moderate (κw 0.38, CI95 %: 0.19–0.58) disease categories. Compared with DSA, both ultrasonography approaches were of equal sensitivity (79.7 % versus 79.7 %; p = 1.0) regarding the identification of severe stenosis, yet the DEGUM approach was more specific than the SRU approach (70.2 % versus 56.4 %, p = 0.0002). There was equality of accuracy parameters (p > 0.05) among both ultrasonography approaches for the other ranges of carotid artery disease.

Conclusion While the sensitivity was equivalent, false-positive identification of severe carotid artery stenosis appears to be more frequent when using the SRU ultrasonography approach than the revised multiparametric DEGUM approach.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel Bestimmung der diagnostischen Übereinstimmung zwischen den multiparametrischen Ultraschallkriterien der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Ultraschall in der Medizin (DEGUM) und den Konsenskriterien der Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound (SRU) hinsichtlich der Graduierung von Karotisstenosen.

Material und Methoden Post-hoc-Analyse einer prospektiven multizentrischen Studie, welche die multiparametrischen DEGUM-Ultraschallkriterien mit der digitalen Subtraktionsangiografie validierte. Die Graduierung von Karotisstenosen in klinisch relevante NASCET-Kategorien (normal, leichtgradig (1–49 %), mittelgradig (50–69 %), hochgradig (70–99 %), Verschluss) erfolgte verblindet gemäß der DEGUM- und SRU-Ultraschallkriterien. Als Referenz wurde der nach NASCET bestimmte angiografische Stenosegrad verwendet.

Ergebnisse Wir analysierten 158 konsekutive Untersuchungen aus Ultraschall und Angiografie. Zwischen beiden sonografischen Graduierungsansätzen fand sich eine gute Übereinstimmung für hochgradige (κw 0,76; 95 %-KI 0,66–0,86) und eine mäßige Übereinstimmung für mittelgradige Stenosen (κw 0,38; 95 %-KI 0,19–0,58). Verglichen mit der Referenzangiografie fand sich kein Unterschied hinsichtlich Sensitivität für hochgradige Stenosen (79,7 % versus 79,7 %; p = 1,0), jedoch eine höhere Spezifität der DEGUM-Kriterien (70,2 % versus 56,4 %; p = 0,0002). In den sonstigen Stenosekategorien bestanden keine Unterschiede der Güteparameter (p > 0,05).

Schlussfolgerung Verglichen mit den SRU-Kriterien weist die Graduierung nach DEGUM eine höhere Spezifität bei der Detektion hochgradiger Stenosen auf. Die Integration von mehr hämodynamischen Parametern scheint somit die Anzahl falsch positiver Diagnosen zu verringern.

Key words

angiography - ultrasonography - diagnostic accuracy - carotid artery disease - vascular

Publication History

Received: 20 December 2020

Accepted: 09 April 2021

Article published online:
05 May 2021

• References

• 1 Arning C, Widder B, von Reutern GM. et al. Revision of DEGUM ultrasound criteria for grading internal carotid artery stenoses and transfer to NASCET measurement. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 251-257
• 2 von Reutern GM, Goertler MW, Bornstein NM. et al. Grading carotid stenosis using ultrasonic methods. Stroke 2012; 43: 916-921
• 3 Grant EG, Benson CB, Moneta GL. et al. Carotid artery stenosis: gray-scale and Doppler US diagnosis–Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference. Radiology 2003; 229: 340-346
• 4 Barnett HJ, Taylor DW, Eliasziw M. et al. Benefit of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic moderate or severe stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1415-1425
• 5 Intersocietal Accreditation Commission. IAC Standards and Guidelines for Vascular Testing Accreditation. Im Internet (Stand: 05.11.2020): https://www.intersocietal.org/vascular/standards/IACVascularTestingStandards2020.pdf
• 6 Arous EJ, Judelson DR, Malka KT. et al. Carotid Duplex Velocity Criteria Recommended by the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound and Endorsed by the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission Lack Predictive Ability for Identifying High-Grade Carotid Artery Stenosis. Ann Vasc Surg 2019; 61: 227-232
• 7 Barlinn K, Rickmann H, Kitzler H. et al. Validation of Multiparametric Ultrasonography Criteria with Digital Subtraction Angiography in Carotid Artery Disease: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Ultraschall in Med 2018; 39: 535-543
• 8 Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE. et al. STARD 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. BMJ 2015; 351: h5527
• 9 Kim S, Lee W. Does McNemar's test compare the sensitivities and specificities of two diagnostic tests?. Stat Methods Med Res 2017; 26: 142-154 . Epub 2016 Sep 30. PMID: 24996898
• 10 Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 1968; 70: 213-220
• 11 Barlinn K, Gahn G, Krogias C. et al. Response to Letter: Validation of Multiparametric Ultrasonography Criteria with Digital Subtraction Angiography in Carotid Artery Disease: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Ultraschall in Med 2019; 40: 517
• 12 AbuRahma AF, Srivastava M, Stone PA. et al. Critical appraisal of the Carotid Duplex Consensus criteria in the diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis. J Vasc Surg 2011; 53: 53
• 13 Braun RM, Bertino RE, Milbrandt J. et al. Ultrasound imaging of carotid artery stenosis: application of the Society of Radiologists in Ultrasoun Consensus Criteria to a Single Institution Clinical Practice. Ultrasound Q 2008; 24: 161-166
• 14 Rutjes AWS, Reitsma JB, Di Nisio M. et al. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies. CMAJ 2006; 174: 469-476
• 15 Chappell FM, Wardlaw JM, Young GR. et al. Carotid artery stenosis: accuracy of noninvasive tests—individual patient data meta-analysis. Radiology 2009; 251: 493-502
• 16 Morris DR, Ayabe K, Inoue T. et al. Evidence-Based Carotid Interventions for Stroke Prevention: State-of-the-art Review. J Atheroscler Thromb 2017; 24: 373-387
• 17 Alexandrov AV, Needleman L. Carotid artery stenosis: making complex assessments of a simple problem or simplifying approach to a complex disease?. Stroke 2012; 43: 627-628
• 18 Del Brutto VJ, Gornik HL, Rundek T. Why are we still debating criteria for carotid artery stenosis?. Ann Transl Med 2020; 8: 1270
• 19 Huston JIII, James EM, Brown Jr RD. et al. Redefined duplex ultrasono-graphic criteria for diagnosis of carotid artery stenosis. Mayo Clin Proc 2000; 75: 1133-1140
• 20 Barlinn K, Floegel T, Kitzler HH. et al. Multi-parametric ultrasound criteria for internal carotid artery disease-comparison with CT angiography. Neuroradiology 2016; 58: 845-885
• 21 Müller M, Agten CA, Österreich M. et al. Assessing internal carotid artery stenosis with a semiautomated computed tomography angiography tool and duplex ultrasound. J Vasc Surg 2015; 61: 1449-1456