Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Falsch positiver MR-Angiobefund einer Karotisstenose

  • Fragen aus der Praxis
  • Published:
Gefässchirurgie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Berczi V, Randall M, Balamurugan R et al (2006) Safety of arch aortography for assessment of carotid arteries. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 31:3–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chappell FM, Wardlaw JM, Young GR et al (2009) Carotid artery stenosis: accuracy of noninvasive tests–individual patient data meta-analysis. Radiology 251:493–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Clevert DA, Johnson T, Michaely H et al (2006) High-grade stenoses of the internal carotid artery: comparison of high- resolution contrast enhanced 3D MRA, duplex sonography and power Doppler imaging. Eur J Radiol 60:379–386

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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 229:340–346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jackson MR, Chang AS, Robles HA et al (1998) Determination of 60% or greater carotid stenosis: a prospective comparison of magnetic resonance angiography and duplex ultrasound with conventional angiography. Ann Vasc Surg 12:236–243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Makaryus AN, Phillips LM, Wright P et al (2009) Mandatory diagnostic angiography for carotid artery stenosis prior to carotid artery intervention. J Interv Cardiol 22:16–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Menke J (2009) Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced MR angiography in severe carotid stenosis: meta-analysis with metaregression of different techniques. Eur Radiol 19:2204–2216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nederkoorn PJ, Elgersma OE, Mali WP et al (2002) Graaf YOverestimation of carotid artery stenosis with magnetic resonance angiography compared with digital subtraction angiography. J Vasc Surg 36:806–813

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. (n a) (1991) North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial Collaborators. Beneficial effect of carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with high-grade carotid stenosis. N Engl J Med 325:445–453

  10. Post K, Eckstein HH, Hoffmann E et al (1997) Degree of carotid artery stenosis. Comparison of selective and non-selective angiographic findings with surgical specimens. Eur J Radiol 25:9–13

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Riles TS, Lee V, Cheever D et al (2010) Clinical course of asymptomatic patients with carotid duplex scan end diastolic velocities of 100 to 124 centimeters per second. J Vasc Surg [Epub ahead of print]

  12. Ringleb P, Kunze A, Allenberg JR et al (2003) Evaluation der stentgeschützten Angioplastie zur Therapy von symptomatischen Stenosen derA. carotis. SPACE und andere randomisierte Studien. Nervenarzt 74:482–488

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sleight SP, Poloniecki J, Halliday AW et al (2002) Asymptomatic carotid stenosis in patients on medical treatment alone. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 23:519–523

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Walker J, Naylor AR (2006) Ultrasound Based Measurement of ‚carotid Stenosis >70%’: An Audit of UK Practice. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg [Epub ahead of print]

  15. Wolfle KD, Schnur C, Pfadenhauer K et al (2002) MR-angiography and duplex-ultrasonography: predictive reliability for angiographically determined internal carotid artery stenosis ≥ 70–99%. Zentralbl Chir 127:81–88

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Gefäßmedizin, HELIOS Klinikum Krefeld, Lutherplatz 40, 47805, Krefeld, Deutschland

    K. Kröger

  2. Chirurgische Abteilung, St. Rochus-Hospital, Castrop-Rauxel, Castrop-Rauxel, Deutschland

    H. Böhner

  3. Klinik für Gefäßchirurgie, Marienhospital Soest, Soest, Deutschland

    U. Klemp

  4. Praxis für Gefässchirurgie, Oberhausen, Deutschland

    S. Pourhassan

Authors
  1. K. Kröger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Böhner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. U. Klemp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Pourhassan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. Kröger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kröger, K., Böhner, H., Klemp, U. et al. Falsch positiver MR-Angiobefund einer Karotisstenose. Gefässchirurgie 15, 545–548 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00772-010-0798-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00772-010-0798-6

Search

Navigation