UVMFLOWNET Archives

September 1999

UVMFLOWNET@LIST.UVM.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
UVM Flownet <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Carles Nicolau Molina <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 4 Sep 1999 00:10:14 +-200
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
quoted-printable
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To:
UVM Flownet <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (32 lines)
Kelly, I know that and we also determine flow velocities but often the stenosis can be underestimated due to arrhytmias, subocclusive stenosis, hypertension or contralateral stenosis. I think that except for calcified plaques, percent stenosis is useful, but correlation with angiography is difficult.

Carlos 


----------
De:             Kelly Estes[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
Enviado:        viernes 3 de septiembre de 1999 23:28
Para:           [log in to unmask]
Asunto:         Re: Carotid stenosis.

In a message dated 09/03/1999 5:21:35 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< we measure stenosis by ultrasound comparing the diameter of the lumen with
the diameter of the vessel at the point of maximum stenosis (real stenosis),
but correlation  with the results of arteriography is sometimes poor because
they compare the diameter of the lumen with the distal diameter of the
carotid.  >>

Carlos,

    Most vascular labs (I hope) are not measuring off of the 2D image for
percent stenosis, rather they are doing velocity measurements with angle
corrected Doppler. This is the most accurate way to determine percent
stenosis with ultrasound technology. There are many published charts with
criteria available.

    I hope this helps.......

Kelly Estes RT(R), RDMS, RDCS, RVT

ATOM RSS1 RSS2