REPLY
The Role of Carotid Bruit in Screening for Carotid Stenosis
Tina T. Lee, MD;
Paul A. Heidenreich, MD; and
Neil A. Solomon, MD
15 October 1997 | Volume 127 Issue 8 (Part 1) | Pages 657-658
IN RESPONSE:
Dr. Rea's query concerns a common, clinically important question. Published data suggest that the presence of carotid bruit is a reasonably accurate indicator of carotid stenosis in symptomatic persons. Fewer data are available with which to assess its role in asymptomatic persons. In symptomatic persons, Ziegler and colleagues [1] found a sensitivity of 0.29 and a specificity of 0.88 for detecting stenosis greater than 50%; the collaborators of the North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial [2] found a sensitivity of 0.62 and a specificity of 0.61 for detecting stenosis of 70% to 99%; and Hankey and Warlow [3] reported the most favorable of results, with a sensitivity of 0.76 and a specificity of 0.76 when a positive angiogram was defined as stenosis of 75% to 99%. However, the evaluation of patients with cerebrovascular symptoms will overestimate the accuracy of carotid bruit for detecting underlying carotid stenosis compared with evaluation in asymptomatic patients.
The group without neurologic symptoms that had the highest known prevalence of carotid stenosis was a Veterans Administration hospital population with cardiovascular disease [4]. This population reportedly had a 15% prevalence of carotid stenosis greater than 50% (the prevalence would be lower if only stenosis of 60% and greater was considered to indicate disease) [4]. If the test characteristics for carotid bruit reported by Hankey and Warlow are applied to a population with a 15% prevalence of carotid stenosis, the presence of carotid bruit increases the probability of carotid disease to 36%. This does not reach the threshold of 40% prevalence needed for further Doppler ultrasonographic screening to be considered cost-effective. If auscultation of carotid bruit under these conditions cannot increase the prevalence of carotid disease to the extent that it is cost-effective for further screening, then auscultation of carotid bruit is not likely to be cost-effective except in higher-risk populations that have been reported in the literature.
Although the presence of carotid bruit in patients with carotid-territory cerebrovascular symptoms increases the probability of an underlying high-grade carotid stenosis, the accuracy of using this marker is low. In asymptomatic persons, the presence of carotid bruit is even less useful and is less a reflection of underlying carotid disease than of nonspecific atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [5].
|
Author and Article Information
|
|---|
Stanford University; Stanford, CA 94305
Kaiser Permanente; Oakland, CA 94612
1. Ziegler DK, Zileli T, Dick A, Sebaugh JL. Correlation of bruits over the carotid artery with angiographically demonstrated lesions. Neurology. 1971; 21:860-5.
2. Sauve JS, Thorpe KE, Sackett DL, Taylor W, Barnett HJ, Haynes RB, et al. Can bruits distinguish high-grade from moderate symptomatic carotid stenosis? The North American Symptomatic Carotid Endarterectomy Trial. Ann Intern Med. 1994; 120:633-7.
3. Hankey GJ, Warlow CP. Symptomatic carotid ischaemic events: safest and most cost effective way of selecting patients for angiography, before carotid endarterectomy. BMJ. 1990; 300:1485-91.
4. Fowl RJ, Marsch JG, Love M, Patterson RB, Shukla R, Kempczinski RF. Prevalence of hemodynamically significant stenosis of the carotid artery in an asymptomatic veteran population. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1991; 172:13-6.
5. Wolf PA, Kannel WB, Sorlie P, McNamara P. Asymptomatic carotid bruit and risk of stroke. The Framingham study. JAMA. 1981; 245:1442-5.
About Letters
The Editors welcome submissions for possible publication in the Letters section. Authors of letters should:
Include no more than 300 words of text, three authors, and five references
Type with double-spacing
Send three copies of the letter, an authors' form signed by all authors, and a cover letter describing any conflicts of interest related to the contents of the letter.
Letters commenting on an Annals article will be considered if they are received within 6 weeks of the time the article was published. Only some of the letters received can be published. Published letters are edited and may be shortened; tables and figures are included only selectively. Authors will be notified that the letter has been received. If the letter is selected for publication, the author will be notified about 3 weeks before the publication date. Unpublished letters cannot be returned.
Annals welcomes electronically submitted letters.