Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 2137–2145 | Cite as

A comparative study of color Doppler imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the detection of ulceration in patients with carotid atherosclerotic disease

  • Vasileios RafailidisEmail author
  • Ioannis Chryssogonidis
  • Chrysostomos Xerras
  • Irini Nikolaou
  • Thomas Tegos
  • Konstantinos Kouskouras
  • Dimitrios Rafailidis
  • Afroditi Charitanti-Kouridou
Ultrasound
  • 187 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of color Doppler imaging (CDI) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for diagnosing carotid ulceration, having multi-detector computed tomography angiography (MDCTA) as the reference method.

Methods

Patients with carotid disease referred for ultrasound (US), either due to the occurrence of neurovascular symptoms or for screening purposes, were included in this study if at least one plaque causing moderate (50–69%) or severe (70–99%) internal carotid artery stenosis was detected. Carotid US with CDI technique, CEUS, and MDCTA were performed in all patients, investigating the presence of ulceration. The agreement between modalities was evaluated using kappa statistics.

Results

The study population included 54 patients (median age 62 years, inter-quartile range 16.2) and 66 carotid arteries. The mean degree of stenosis was 68.5% (SD 12.2%) while 47.1% of plaques were symptomatic. MDCTA characterized 28.8% of plaques as smooth, 45.5% irregular, and 24.3% ulcerated. Flow reversal was detected with CDI in 65.5% of ulcerations, while swirling of the microbubbles and neovessels adjacent to the ulcer were detected with CEUS in 17.64%. The agreement for ulceration diagnosis was moderate between CDI and CEUS (kappa 0.473) and between CDI and MDCTA (kappa 0.473) and very good between CEUS and MDCTA (kappa 0.921). The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of CDI for the diagnosis of ulceration were 41.2%, 97.95%, 87.5%, 82.8% respectively, while CEUS respective measures were 94.1%, 97.95%, 94.1%, and 97.95%.

Conclusion

CEUS outperformed CDI in terms of agreement with MDCTA and diagnostic accuracy for the diagnosis of ulcerated carotid plaque.

Key Points

• Superficial ulceration is a significant feature of carotid plaque vulnerability.

• Color Doppler imaging has the potential to demonstrate carotid plaque ulceration but is characterized by limited sensitivity and moderate agreement with the reference method of multi-detector computed tomography angiography.

• Contrast-enhanced ultrasound outperforms color Doppler imaging in terms of sensitivity for the detection of carotid plaque ulceration and in agreement with the reference method of multi-detector computed tomography angiography.

Keywords

Ultrasonography Computed tomography angiography Stroke Contrast media 

Abbreviations

CDI

Color Doppler imaging

CEUS

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound

MDCTA

Multi-detector computed tomography angiography

TIA

Transient ischemic attack

US

Ultrasound

Notes

Acknowledgements

V.R. has received a scholarship for his PhD studies on “Imaging of the carotid vulnerable plaque with contrast-enhanced ultrasound and multi-detector computed tomography angiography” from the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Vasileios Rafailidis.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• Prospective

• Diagnostic or prognostic study

• Performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Eliasziw M, Streifler JY, Fox AJ, Hachinski VC, Ferguson GG, Barnett HJ (1994) Significance of plaque ulceration in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial. Stroke 25:304–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Handa N, Matsumoto M, Maeda H, Hougaku H, Kamada T (1995) Ischemic stroke events and carotid atherosclerosis. Results of the Osaka Follow-up Study for Ultrasonographic Assessment of Carotid Atherosclerosis (the OSACA Study). Stroke 26:1781–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rafailidis V, Chryssogonidis I, Tegos T, Kouskouras K, Charitanti-Kouridou A (2017) Imaging of the ulcerated carotid atherosclerotic plaque: a review of the literature. Insights Imaging 8:213–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Orlandi G, Parenti G, Landucci Pellegrini L et al (1999) Plaque surface and microembolic signals in moderate carotid stenosis. Ital J Neurol Sci 20:179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jovanović ZB, Pavlović MA, Vujisić Tešić PB et al (2013) The significance of the ultrasound diagnostics in evaluation of the emboligenic pathogenesis of transient ischemic attacks. Ultrasound Med Biol 39:597–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gao P, Chen ZQ, Jiao LQ, Ling F (2007) The correlation of carotid plaque pathohistologic features and neurological symptoms: a meta-analysis of observational studies. Neurol India 55:122–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saba L, Yuan C, Hatsukami TS et al (2018) Carotid artery wall imaging: perspective and guidelines from the ASNR Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group and Expert Consensus Recommendations of the American Society of Neuroradiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 39:E9–e31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fürst H, Hartl WH, Jansen I, Liepsch D, Lauterjung L, Schildberg FW (1992) Color-flow Doppler sonography in the identification of ulcerative plaques in patients with high-grade carotid artery stenosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 13:1581–1587Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Comerota AJ, Katz ML, White JV, Grosh JD (1990) The preoperative diagnosis of the ulcerated carotid atheroma. J Vasc Surg 11:505–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anzidei M, Napoli A, Zaccagna F et al (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of colour Doppler ultrasonography, CT angiography and blood-pool-enhanced MR angiography in assessing carotid stenosis: a comparative study with DSA in 170 patients. Radiol Med 117:54–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saba L, Caddeo G, Sanfilippo R, Montisci R, Mallarini G (2007) CT and ultrasound in the study of ulcerated carotid plaque compared with surgical results: potentialities and advantages of multidetector row CT angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28:1061–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rafailidis V, Charitanti A, Tegos T, Destanis E, Chryssogonidis I (2017) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the carotid system: a review of the current literature. J Ultrasound 20:97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    ten Kate GL, van Dijk AC, van den Oord SC et al (2013) Usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for detection of carotid plaque ulceration in patients with symptomatic carotid atherosclerosis. Am J Cardiol 112:292–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    van den Oord SC, Akkus Z, Renaud G et al (2014) Assessment of carotid atherosclerosis, intraplaque neovascularization, and plaque ulceration using quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound in asymptomatic patients with diabetes mellitus. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 15:1213–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamada O, Sakata N, Ogata T, Shimada H, Inoue T (2016) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for detecting histological carotid plaque rupture: quantitative analysis of ulcer. Int J Stroke 11:791–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grant EG, Benson CB, Moneta GL et al (2003) Carotid artery stenosis: gray-scale and Doppler US diagnosis--Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference. Radiology 229:340–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rafailidis V, Charitanti A, Tegos T, Rafailidis D, Chryssogonidis I (2016) Swirling of microbubbles: demonstration of a new finding of carotid plaque ulceration on contrast-enhanced ultrasound explaining the arterio-arterial embolism mechanism. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc 64:245–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    (1998) Randomised trial of endarterectomy for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis: final results of the MRC European Carotid Surgery Trial (ECST). Lancet 351:1379–87Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lovett JK, Gallagher PJ, Hands LJ, Walton J, Rothwell PM (2004) Histological correlates of carotid plaque surface morphology on lumen contrast imaging. Circulation 110:2190–2197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Saba L, Anzidei M, Marincola BC et al (2014) Imaging of the carotid artery vulnerable plaque. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 37:572–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brajović MD, Marković N, Loncar G et al (2009) The influence of various morphologic and hemodynamic carotid plaque characteristics on neurological events onset and deaths. ScientificWorldJournal 9:509–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nakamura T, Tsutsumi Y, Shimizu Y, Uchiyama S (2013) Ulcerated carotid plaques with ultrasonic echolucency are causatively associated with thromboembolic cerebrovascular events. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 22:93–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singh TD, Kramer CL, Mandrekar J, Lanzino G, Rabinstein AA (2015) Asymptomatic carotid stenosis: risk of progression and development of symptoms. Cerebrovasc Dis 40:236–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Snow M, Ben-Sassi A, Winter RK et al (2007) Can carotid ultrasound predict plaque histopathology? J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 48:299–303Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Berg M, Zhang Z, Ikonen A et al (2005) Multi-detector row CT angiography in the assessment of carotid artery disease in symptomatic patients: comparison with rotational angiography and digital subtraction angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:1022–1034Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Randoux B, Marro B, Koskas F et al (2001) Carotid artery stenosis: prospective comparison of CT, three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR, and conventional angiography. Radiology 220:179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Piscaglia F, Nolsøe C, Dietrich CF et al (2012) The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med 33:33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sidhu PS, Cantisani V, Dietrich CF et al (2018) The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations for the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in non-hepatic applications: update 2017 (long version). Ultraschall Med 39:e2–e44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sirlin CB, Lee YZ, Girard MS et al (2001) Contrast-enhanced B-mode US angiography in the assessment of experimental in vivo and in vitro atherosclerotic disease. Acad Radiol 8:162–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kono Y, Pinnell SP, Sirlin CB et al (2004) Carotid arteries: contrast-enhanced US angiography--preliminary clinical experience. Radiology 230:561–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Bray JM, Baud JM, Dauzat M (1997) Consensus concerning the morphology and the risk of carotid plaques. Cerebrovasc Dis 7:289–296Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Imbesi SG, Kerber CW (1999) An experimental and angiographic explanation of why ulcerated carotid bulbs embolize. Interv Neuroradiol 5:11–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Vicenzini E, Giannoni MF, Puccinelli F et al (2007) Detection of carotid adventitial vasa vasorum and plaque vascularization with ultrasound cadence contrast pulse sequencing technique and echo-contrast agent. Stroke 38:2841–2843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yusuf GT, Sellars ME, Deganello A, Cosgrove DO, Sidhu PS (2017) Retrospective analysis of the safety and cost implications of pediatric contrast-enhanced ultrasound at a single center. AJR Am J Roentgenol 208:446–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lorusso A, Quaia E, Poillucci G, Stacul F, Grisi G, Cova MA (2015) Activity-based cost analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) related to the diagnostic impact in focal liver lesion characterisation. Insights Imaging 6:499–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tahmasebpour HR, Buckley AR, Cooperberg PL, Fix CH (2005) Sonographic examination of the carotid arteries. Radiographics 25:1561–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Arning C, Eckert B (2004) The diagnostic relevance of colour Doppler artefacts in carotid artery examinations. Eur J Radiol 51:246–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vasileios Rafailidis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ioannis Chryssogonidis
    • 1
  • Chrysostomos Xerras
    • 2
  • Irini Nikolaou
    • 1
  • Thomas Tegos
    • 2
  • Konstantinos Kouskouras
    • 1
  • Dimitrios Rafailidis
    • 3
  • Afroditi Charitanti-Kouridou
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyAHEPA University General Hospital, Aristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.1st Neurological DepartmentAHEPA University General Hospital, Aristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.Department of Radiology“G. Gennimatas” General Hospital of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations