Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
A carotid web (CaW) is a shelf-like, thin, triangular endoluminal projection typically arising from the posterior wall of the internal carotid artery (ICA) bulb. CaW is considered by many to be an intimal variant of fibromuscular dysplasia and is associated with an increased risk of ischemic stroke in otherwise low-risk, younger patients. The CaWY study is a cross-sectional, multicenter, population-based sonographic survey with blinded central image adjudication, reported in accordance with STROBE guidelines for cross-sectional studies, aimed at estimating the prevalence of CaW detected by duplex sonography in the general population aged 15-25 years.
Background and Rationale A carotid web (CaW) is a shelf-like, thin, triangular endoluminal projection-typically arising from the posterior wall of the internal carotid artery (ICA) bulb-considered by many to be an intimal variant of fibromuscular dysplasia and associated with embolic ischemic stroke in otherwise low-risk, younger patients. Although CT angiography (CTA) is most frequently used to diagnose CaW, characteristic appearances are detectable on longitudinal B-mode carotid duplex ultrasound (DUS) with supportive Doppler findings; microflow/superb microvascular imaging can improve conspicuity. Population prevalence in the general young adult population is unknown; most estimates come from stroke cohorts (≈2% among symptomatic populations; higher within cryptogenic stroke subsets), so a dedicated, population-based sonographic study is needed.
Objectives and Hypotheses Primary objective: Estimate the point prevalence of carotid web in a general young adult population aged 15-25 years using duplex sonography.
Secondary objectives:
Hypothesis: Carotid web is present in 2 % of the general 15-25-year population (two-sided). (This is a planning assumption; true prevalence may be lower/higher. Literature in symptomatic cohorts ranges roughly 2%, higher in cryptogenic stroke; general-population data are lacking.)
Study Design Cross-sectional, multicenter, population-based sonographic survey with blinded central image adjudication, reported in accordance with the STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines for cross-sectional studies.
Study Population Setting & sampling frame
Sample Size Assumptions
• Expected prevalence p=0.02 (2%)
Ultrasound Acquisition Protocol Equipment & presets
Scanning sequence (bilateral)
Image storage
Definite carotid web:
Inclusion criteria:
Exclusion criteria:
Suspected carotid web:
Inclusion criteria:
1. Focal echogenic lesion in the carotid bifurcation (15 mm proximally to the flow divider and 15 mm distally) 2. Minimal intraluminal prominence (width) 1.5 mm 3. One out of these criteria:
In longitudinal view: Shape of lesion is shelf-like or valve-like, triangular with the sharpest angle proximally, with the blood flow direction
In transversal view: Transversal linear defect with echogenic surface projecting in the arterial lumen (the shape should be nest-like)
Exclusion criteria:
1. Presence of carotid plaque (Mannheim consensus) in the posterior wall
Differential sonographic features to record: typical plaque (echogenic/heterogeneous with surface calcification), carotid diaphragm, dissection flap (mobile, intramural hematoma), carotid web with superimposed thrombus.
7) Sonographic Case Definition of Carotid Web
Required equipment/settings (if specified in your criteria):
Diagnostic categories (tick all that apply):
Morphologic measurements (standardized):
• Web thickness (mm): ____ (measured at ______)
Hemodynamic signatures (as per your thresholds):
• Color Doppler recirculation/aliasing: present / absent (criteria: ______)
Differential exclusion checklist (define image features to rule out):
Image acquisition minimums (per side):
• Transverse cine (≥3 cycles) focused on bulb/ICA origin
• Longitudinal cine in ≥2 insonation planes (lat & post-lat)
Quality grading (apply your rules):
• Grade 1 (excellent) / 2 (diagnostic) / 3 (limited) - use only Grades 1-2 in primary analysis; Grade 3 in sensitivity analysis.
Reader guidance & adjudication using your criteria:
Two blinded readers score Definite/Probable/Possible/Not CaW; discrepancies resolved by third reader under the same rubric.
10% repeat reads for κ/ICC. CRF add-ons (pre-wired to your criteria)
Checkboxes for each criterion element (present/absent/not evaluable).
Auto-calculated category (Definite/Probable/Possible/Not CaW) based on boxes ticked.
Mandatory image IDs linked to each measurement. 8) Training, Blinding, and Adjudication
Sonographers undergo a standardized training module with exemplar images and checklists.
Blinding: Operators are blinded to participant clinical data except age/sex; central readers (two expert neurosonologists) are blinded to site and each other.
Adjudication: Disagreements (probable/possible/absent) resolved by a third senior reader.
Reliability: 10% random sample re-read for inter-observer agreement (Cohen's κ for categorical calls; ICC for continuous measures).
9) Data Collection
Demographics: age, sex, ethnicity (optional), height/weight.
Vascular risk factors: smoking status, BP at visit, lipid profile if available, personal history of stroke/TIA/migraine, OCP use (females), recreational drugs, connective tissue disease/FMD history.
Ultrasound fields: laterality; CaW category (absent/possible/probable), web dimensions (length, thickness, projection angle-estimate), distance from flow divider, presence of superimposed thrombus, plaque descriptors, standard velocities (CCA, bulb, ICA), ICA/CCA PSV ratio, EDV.
Imaging quality scores and reasons for non-diagnostic studies.
10) Validation Substudy
Participants with definite or possible CaW on DUS plus 1:2 matched DUS-negative controls (matched by age/sex/site) will be invited for CTA within 4 weeks to evaluate concordance (index test: DUS; reference standard: CTA with thin-slice oblique sagittal reconstructions). Outcome: sensitivity/specificity and positive predictive value of DUS criteria. (CTA descriptions of CaW as thin, shelf-like posterior bulb defects guide the reference call.)
11) Statistical Analysis Plan
Weighting: Apply sampling weights for cluster/strata to estimate population prevalence; robust SEs (Taylor linearization) or survey-design GLMs.
Descriptives: Means/SDs or medians/IQRs; counts/% with 95% CIs.
Primary analysis: Weighted prevalence and exact (Clopper-Pearson) or Wilson CIs for rare events; compare strata with Rao-Scott χ².
Regression (exploratory): Survey-weighted Poisson (log link, robust variance) for prevalence ratios of CaW vs candidate covariates.
Reliability: Cohen's κ with 95% CI (categorical), ICC(2,1) for continuous measures.
Missing data: Report flow; use complete-case for primary prevalence; multiple imputation for covariate analyses if >5% missing.
Sensitivity analyses: (i) include possible CaW as positive; (ii) restrict to scans with top quality scores; (iii) per-reader estimates.
13) Bias Minimization & Quality Control
Pre-specified imaging protocol; machine presets harmonized across sites.
Central training and periodic recalibration; quarterly site audits of randomly selected studies.
Consecutive sampling within clusters to reduce selection bias; track response rates.
Maintain blinding; lock image sets before adjudication.
14) Ethics and Safety
Minimal-risk imaging study; no ionizing radiation in the primary protocol.
Informed consent; separate consent for optional CTA.
Participants with incidental significant carotid stenosis or suspected thrombus receive counseling and referral per local care pathways.
Data privacy per GDPR; coded IDs; secure storage.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Youth | Age 15 - 25 years |
Not provided
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Prevalence | Prevalence of web in youth population | on the day of the ultrasound examination |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
General population aged 15 - 25 years
| Name | Role | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Å koloudÃk, Prof., M.D., Ph.D. | Contact | +420-739782970 | skoloudik@email.cz | |
| David Pakizer, MSc., Ph.D. | Contact | +420-776457295 | david.pakizer@email.cz |
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| David Å koloudÃk, Prof., M.D., Ph.D. | University of Ostrava | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faculty of Medicine, University of Ostrava | Recruiting | Ostrava | Moravian-Silesian Region | 70300 | Czechia |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 41340049 | Result | Yang J, Zhou F, Lei N, Liu R, Yang B, Zhang T, Li X, Xing Y. Carotid web ultrasonography and its associations with ischemic stroke: a preliminary observational study. BMC Neurol. 2025 Dec 3;26(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s12883-025-04486-w. | |
| 39424178 | Result | Talathi S, Lipsitz EC. Current Therapy for Carotid Webs. Ann Vasc Surg. 2025 Apr;113:415-420. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2024.08.014. Epub 2024 Oct 16. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Type | Includes Protocol | Includes SAP | Includes ICF | Document Label | Document Date | Document Uploaded Date | Document File Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prot | Yes | No | No | Study Protocol | Oct 20, 2025 | Jan 10, 2026 | Prot_000.pdf |
| ICF | No | No | Yes | Informed Consent Form | Aug 20, 2025 | Mar 22, 2026 | ICF_001.pdf |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| 33668027 | Result | Yang T, Yoshida K, Maki T, Fushimi Y, Yamada K, Okawa M, Yamamoto Y, Takayama N, Suzuki K, Miyamoto S. Prevalence and site of predilection of carotid webs focusing on symptomatic and asymptomatic Japanese patients. J Neurosurg. 2021 Mar 5;135(5):1370-1376. doi: 10.3171/2020.8.JNS201727. Print 2021 Nov 1. |
| 38290814 | Result | Chen H, Colasurdo M, Costa M, Nossek E, Kan P. Carotid webs: a review of pathophysiology, diagnostic findings, and treatment options. J Neurointerv Surg. 2024 Nov 22;16(12):1294-1298. doi: 10.1136/jnis-2023-021243. |
| 35811446 | Result | Fontaine L, Guidolin B, Viguier A, Gollion C, Barbieux M, Larrue V. Ultrasound characteristics of carotid web. J Neuroimaging. 2022 Sep;32(5):894-901. doi: 10.1111/jon.13022. Epub 2022 Jul 10. |