| 朱凤水,李坤成,杨小平,王萍,李慎茂,董岩.颈动脉狭窄评价的比较影像学研究[J].中国医学影像技术,2000,16(3):0175~177 |
| 颈动脉狭窄评价的比较影像学研究 |
| Comparative Study of Imaging Modal ities in Evaluation for Carotid Stenosis |
| 投稿时间：1999-11-30 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 颈动脉狭窄 比较影像学 |
| 英文关键词:Carotid artery stenosis Comparative imageology |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1427 |
| 全文下载次数: 59 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 评价多种影像学检查方法对颈动脉狭窄的诊断价值,探讨临床优选检查路线。方法 搜集36 例
临床疑诊颈动脉狭窄的患者,全部行超声、MRA 及DSA 检查。以颈总动脉法(CCM) 测量狭窄率。结果 以DSA 检
查结果为金标准,超声诊断敏感度为8310 % ,特异度为6814 % ,准确度为7912 %。以DSA 为金标准,MRA 的诊断敏
感度为9215 % ,特异度为7819 % ,准确度为8819 %。结论 超声检查敏感性高、特异性较低,操作简便、无创伤,是
理想的人群筛选检查方法,并适用于病例随访。MRA 检查的敏感度、特异度、准确度均高于超声,一次检查显示颈
动脉全貌,与MRI 同时扫描可获取更多的诊断信息。DSA 检查仍为评价颈动脉狭窄的金标准,若行介入治疗必须
进行DSA 检查。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To evaluate the value and limitation of several imaging modalities and probe into the optimal examination route of carotid artery stenosis. Methods 36 patients with clinical suspected carotid stenosis were collected ,and
examined by US ,MRA and DSA in all The common carotid artery method CCM of measurement was used in evaluating
carotid stenosis. Results We compared the findings of US ,and MRA with DSA. The sensitivity was 83. 0 % ,specificity
was 68. 4 % and accuracy was 79. 2 % of US diagnosis ,however the sensitivity was 92. 5 % ,specificity was 78. 9 % and accuracy was 88. 9 % of MRA respectively. Conclusion US is highly sensitivity and lowly specificity for evaluating carotid
stenosis at our investigation ,but it is a simply and untraumatic method. It is suitable for using in screening test and follow-up
detection. The sensitivity ,specificity and accuracy of MRA are all higher than that of US ,and MRA can demonstrate the
whole carotid artery by one examination ,and it is often complied with MRI scan ,so more diagnostic information will be obtained. DSA is still the“gold-standard”for diagnosis of carotid stenosis ,and it is necessary when interventional theraphy
should be performed. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
