Accuracy of duplex ultrasonography versus angiotomography for the diagnosis of extracranial internal carotid stenosis.

INTRODUCTION: Internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis causes about 15% of ischemic strokes. Duplex ultrasonography (DUS) is the first line of investigation of ICA stenosis, but its accuracy varies in the literature and it is usual to complement the study with another more accurate exam when faced with significant stenosis. There is a lack of studies that compare DUS with angiotomography (CTA) in the present literature. METHODS: we performed an accuracy study, which compared DUS to CTA of patients in a tertiary hospital with a maximum interval of three months between tests. Patients were selected retrospectively, and two independent and certified vascular surgeons evaluated each image in a masked manner. When there was discordance, a third evaluator was summoned. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of ICA stenosis of 50-94% and 70-94%. RESULTS: we included 45 patients and 84 arteries after inclusion and exclusion criteria applied. For the 50-94% stenosis range, DUS accuracy was 69%, sensitivity 89%, and specificity 63%. For the 70-94% stenosis range, DUS accuracy was 84%, sensitivity 61%, and specificity 93%. There was discordance between CTA evaluators with a change from clinical to surgical management in at least 37.5% of the conflicting reports. CONCLUSION: DUS had an accuracy of 69% for stenoses of 50-94% and 84% for stenoses of 70-94% of the ICA. The CTA analysis depended directly on the evaluator with a change in clinical conduct in more than 37% of cases.

Accuracy of duplex ultrasonography versus angiotomography for the diagnosis of extracranial internal carotid stenosis / Acurácia da ultrassonografia duplex comparada à angiotomografia para o diagnóstico de estenose de carótida interna extracraniana

ABSTRACT Introduction: Internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis causes about 15% of ischemic strokes. Duplex ultrasonography (DUS) is the first line of investigation of ICA stenosis, but its accuracy varies in the literature and it is usual to complement the study with another more accurate exam when faced with significant stenosis. There is a lack of studies that compare DUS with angiotomography (CTA) in the present literature. Methods: we performed an accuracy study, which compared DUS to CTA of patients in a tertiary hospital with a maximum interval of three months between tests. Patients were selected retrospectively, and two independent and certified vascular surgeons evaluated each image in a masked manner. When there was discordance, a third evaluator was summoned. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of ICA stenosis of 50-94% and 70-94%. Results: we included 45 patients and 84 arteries after inclusion and exclusion criteria applied. For the 50-94% stenosis range, DUS accuracy was 69%, sensitivity 89%, and specificity 63%. For the 70-94% stenosis range, DUS accuracy was 84%, sensitivity 61%, and specificity 93%. There was discordance between CTA evaluators with a change from clinical to surgical management in at least 37.5% of the conflicting reports. Conclusion: DUS had an accuracy of 69% for stenoses of 50-94% and 84% for stenoses of 70-94% of the ICA. The CTA analysis depended directly on the evaluator with a change in clinical conduct in more than 37% of cases.

RESUMO Introdução: a estenose da artéria carótida interna (ACI) causa cerca de 15% dos acidentes vasculares cerebrais isquêmicos. A ultrassonografia duplex (USD) é a primeira linha de investigação da estenose de ACI, mas sua acurácia varia na literatura e é comum complementar o estudo com outro exame de maior acurácia diante de estenose significativa. Há uma escassez de estudos que comparem a USD com a angiotomografia computadorizada (ATC) na literatura atual. Métodos: realizamos um estudo de acurácia, que comparou a USD à ATC de pacientes de um hospital terciário com um intervalo máximo de três meses entre os exames. Os pacientes foram selecionados retrospectivamente e dois cirurgiões vasculares independentes e certificados avaliaram cada imagem de maneira mascarada. Quando houve discordância, um terceiro avaliador foi convocado. Avaliou-se a precisão diagnóstica da estenose da ACI de 50-94% e 70-94%. Resultados: foram incluídos 45 pacientes e 84 artérias após a aplicação dos critérios de inclusão e exclusão. Para a faixa de estenose de 50-94%, a acurácia da USD foi 69%, sensibilidade 89% e especificidade 63%. Para a faixa de estenose de 70-94%, a acurácia da USD foi 84%, sensibilidade 61% e especificidade 93%. Ocorreu discordância entre avaliadores da ATC com mudança de conduta clínica para cirúrgica em pelo menos 37,5% dos laudos conflitantes. Conclusão: a USD teve uma acurácia de 69% para estenoses de 50-94% e de 84% para estenoses de 70-94% da ACI. A análise das ATC dependeu diretamente do avaliador com mudança de conduta clínica em mais de 37% dos casos.

Smoking cessation for peripheral arterial disease: systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: peripheral arterial disease has smoking as its main avoidable vascular risk factor. However, most studies do not focus on smoking as the main exposure variable. OBJECTIVES: to assess the impact of smoking cessation interventions versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention, on peripheral arterial disease outcomes. METHODS: we will use the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions to guide whole this review process. We will consider parallel or cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cohort studies. We will search CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS and IBECS. We will also conduct a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP for ongoing or unpublished trials. Each research step will involve at least two independent reviewers. We will create a table, using GRADE pro GDT software, reporting the pooled effect estimates for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, lower limb amputation, adverse events, walking distance, clinical severity, vessel or graft secondary patency, and QoL. CONCLUSIONS: we will assess these outcomes according to the five GRADE considerations to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for these outcomes, and to draw conclusions about the certainty of the evidence within the review.

Smoking cessation for peripheral arterial disease: systematic review protocol / Cessação do tabagismo para doença arterial periférica: protocolo de revisão sistemática

ABSTRACT Background: peripheral arterial disease has smoking as its main avoidable vascular risk factor. However, most studies do not focus on smoking as the main exposure variable. Objectives: to assess the impact of smoking cessation interventions versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention, on peripheral arterial disease outcomes. Methods: we will use the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions to guide whole this review process. We will consider parallel or cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cohort studies. We will search CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS and IBECS. We will also conduct a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the ICTRP for ongoing or unpublished trials. Each research step will involve at least two independent reviewers. We will create a table, using GRADE pro GDT software, reporting the pooled effect estimates for the following outcomes: all-cause mortality, lower limb amputation, adverse events, walking distance, clinical severity, vessel or graft secondary patency, and QoL. Conclusions: we will assess these outcomes according to the five GRADE considerations to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for these outcomes, and to draw conclusions about the certainty of the evidence within the review.

RESUMO Introdução: a doença arterial periférica tem o tabagismo como principal fator de risco vascular evitável. Entretanto, a maioria dos estudos não destaca o tabagismo como principal variável de exposição. Objetivos: avaliar o impacto das intervenções de cessação do tabagismo versus comparador ativo, placebo ou nenhuma intervenção, nos desfechos da doença arterial periférica. Métodos: usaremos o Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions para orientar todo este processo de revisão. Consideraremos ensaios controlados paralelos ou randomizados por cluster (ECRs), quase-ECRs e estudos de coorte. Buscaremos no CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS e IBECS. ClinicalTrials.gov e ICTRP serão consultados para ensaios em andamento ou não publicados. Criaremos uma tabela, usando o software GRADE pro GDT, relatando as estimativas de efeito agrupado para os seguintes desfechos: mortalidade por todas as causas, amputação de membro inferior, eventos adversos, distância percorrida, gravidade clínica, permeabilidade secundária do vaso ou enxerto e qualidade de vida. Avaliaremos esses resultados de acordo com as cinco considerações GRADE para avaliar a certeza do corpo de evidências para esses resultados e tirar conclusões sobre a certeza das evidências na revisão.