Assessment of Apparent Internal Carotid Occlusion on Ultrasound: Prospective Comparison of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound, Magnetic Resonance Angiography and Digital Subtraction Angiography

ObjectivesModern conventional ultrasound is sensitive to slow flow, but may misclassify some tight stenoses as occlusion. Symptomatic patients with tight proximal internal carotid artery stenoses may benefit from carotid endarterectomy but those with occlusion or long-segment disease do not.DesignA prospective study of the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CE-US), 2D time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography (2D-TOF MRA) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) against a reference standard of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) in patients with apparent carotid occlusion on conventional ultrasound.Materials and methodsThirty-one patients with apparent carotid occlusion on conventional ultrasound and with recent ispilateral hemispheric transient ischaemeic attacks (TIAs) were studied. The primary endpoint was confirmation of occlusion with a secondary endpoint of identification of a surgically correctible lesion.ResultsThe sensitivity and specificity of CE-US, 2D-TOF MRA and CE-MRA for patency were 1 & 1, 0.33 & 1 and 0.6 & 1 respectively and for the detection of a surgically correctible lesion were 1 & 0.96, 0.67 & 1 and 1 and 0.96 respectively. CE-US was difficult to interpret, precluding confident diagnosis in 5 cases.Conclusions2D-TOF MRA had poor sensitivity for patency and cannot be recommended as a second-line investigation to assess vessels apparently occluded on conventional ultrasound. Confident diagnosis on CE-US and CE-MRA accurately identified occlusion. If occlusion is confirmed by either of these modalities, no further imaging is required. The relative advantages of CE-US or CE-MRA in this situation are uncertain.