Download PDF
Ultraschall Med 2019; 40(04): 517
DOI: 10.1055/a-0890-4900
Letter to the Editor
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Authors’ Response to Letter: Validation of Multiparametric Ultrasonography Criteria with Digital Subtraction Angiography in Carotid Artery Disease: A Prospective Multicenter Study

Kristian Barlinn
1   Department of Neurology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
,
Georg Gahn
2   Department of Neurology, Municipal Hospital Karlsruhe gGmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany
,
Christos Krogias
3   Department of Neurology, St. Josef Hospital, Ruhr University Bochum, Germany
,
Harald Mudra
4   Department of Cardiology, Klinikum Muenchen-Neuperlach, Munich, Germany
,
Andrei V. Alexandrov
5   Department of Neurology, The University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, United States
,
Norbert Weiss
6   Center for Vascular Medicine and Department of Medicine III, Division of Angiology
,
Volker Puetz
1   Department of Neurology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 June 2019 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Letter to:

Validation of Multiparametric Ultrasonography Criteria with Digital Subtraction Angiography in Carotid Artery Disease: A Prospective Multicenter StudyUltraschall Med 2019; 40(04): 516-516
DOI: 10.1055/a-0889-8042

We thank Prof. von Reutern for commenting on our article on the prospective multicenter validation of the revised DEGUM ultrasound criteria for carotid artery stenosis grading [1] [2]. We would like to emphasize that our study was not meant to evaluate the ultrasound modality per se, but rather the revised and widely used multiparametric DEGUM approach for ultrasound grading of carotid artery disease as many other approaches have been validated before [3]. Any diagnostic approach adopted by an ultrasound laboratory has to undergo validation [4], especially when it is regularly used for treatment decisions in carotid artery disease. We agree that technological progress in the last decades and improved understanding of hemodynamics have facilitated the assessment of carotid artery disease. However, this alone does not supersede its scientific validation.

 

  • References

  • 1 Barlinn K, Rickmann H, Kitzler H. et al. Validation of Multiparametric Ultrasonography Criteria with Digital Subtraction Angiography in Carotid Artery Disease: A Prospective Multicenter Study. Ultraschall Med 2018; 39: 535-543
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Arning C, Widder B, von Reutern GM. et al. Ultraschallkriterien zur Graduierung von Stenosen der A. carotis interna – Revision der DEGUM-Kriterien und Transfer in NASCET-Stenosierungsgrade. Ultraschall in Med 2010; 31: 251-257
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wardlaw JM, Chappell FM, Best JJ. et al. Non-invasive imaging compared with intra-arterial angiography in the diagnosis of symptomatic carotid stenosis: a metaanalysis. Lancet 2006; 367: 1503-1512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Intersocietal Accreditation Commission. https://www.intersocietal.org/vascular/standards/IACVascularTestingStandards2018.pdf Accessed March 06 2019
    PubMed
  • 5 Grant EG, Benson CB, Moneta GL. et al. Carotid artery stenosis: gray-scale and Doppler US diagnosis–Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Consensus Conference. Radiology 2003; 229: 340-346
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Winzer S, Puetz V, Kitzler HH. et al. Ultrasonography Grading of Internal Carotid Artery Disease: Multi-Parametric DEGUM versus SRU Consensus Criteria. Stroke 2017; 48: ATMP32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar