title: Comparison of treatment plans for peripheral arterial disease made with multi-station contrast medium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography and duplex ultrasound scanning.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study was undertaken to investigate the effects of substituting multi-station total outflow contrast medium-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) for color duplex ultrasound (US) scanning on treatment planning in the diagnostic workup of patients with suspected or known peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Patients and methods One hundred consecutive patients referred because of suspected or proved peripheral arterial occlusive disease to a University Hospital underwent both aortoiliac duplex US scanning and multi-station total outflow CE-MRA. For 73 of these patients (57% men; mean age, 62 years) treatment or treatment plans could be retraced. Eighteen patients also underwent femoro-popliteal duplex US scanning. Three experienced vascular surgeons retrospectively formulated two sets of treatment plans based on standardized clinical parameters and either duplex US scanning or CE-MRA. The main outcome measure was proportion of patients for whom the treatment plan matched actual treatment without additional use of intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography. Actual treatment, based on all available information, including results of duplex US scanning, CE-MRA, and any other diagnostic tests, served as the standard of reference.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Duplex US scanning provided enough information for treatment planning in 46, 45, and 53 patients versus 67, 68, and 66 patients when CE-MRA was used (surgeons 1, 2, and 3, respectively; surgeons 1 and 2, P <.001; surgeon 3, P =.007). Treatment plans based on duplex US scanning exactly matched actual treatment in 37 of 73 patients (51%; surgeon 1), 36 of 73 patients (49%; surgeon 2), and 46 of 73 patients (63%; surgeon 3). Treatment plans based on CE-MRA exactly matched actual treatment in 56 of 73 patients (77%; surgeon 1), 55 of 73 patients (75%; surgeon 2), and 51 of 73 patients (70%; surgeon 3). Positive predictive value and negative predictive value of duplex US scanning as measures of ability to discriminate between surgical and nonsurgical treatment were 0 of 0 (undefined) and 43 of 46 (93%), 1 of 2 (50%) and 40 of 43 (93%), and 5 of 5 (100%) and 44 of 48 (92%) for surgeons 1, 2, and 3, respectively. For CE-MRA, positive and negative predictive values were 11 of 13 (85%) and 50 of 54 (93%), 10 of 12 (83%) and 51 of 56 (91%), and 8 of 13 (62%) and 48 of 53 (91%), respectively, for surgeons 1, 2, and 3.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Compared with aorto-iliac and femoro-popliteal duplex US scanning, multi-station total outflow CE-MRA is more effective for treatment planning in most patients with known or suspected peripheral arterial occlusive disease.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht, Maastricht University Hospital, Maastricht, The Netherlands. leiner@rad.unimaas.nl
authors.forename: Tim
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Leiner
authors.forename: Jan H M
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Tordoir
authors.forename: Alphons G H
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Kessels
authors.forename: Patty J
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Nelemans
authors.forename: Geert Willem
authors.initials: GW
authors.lastname: Schurink
authors.forename: Peter J E H M
authors.initials: PJ
authors.lastname: Kitslaar
authors.forename: Kai Yiu J A M
authors.initials: KY
authors.lastname: Ho
authors.forename: Jos M A
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: van Engelshoven
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001157:Arterial Occlusive Diseases / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000628:therapy; D002985:Clinical Protocols; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D018810:Magnetic Resonance Angiography; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D016491:Peripheral Vascular Diseases / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000628:therapy; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011859:Radiography; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D018615:Ultrasonography, Doppler, Color