BMJ  2007;334:1257 (16 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.39217.473275.55 (published 4 June 2007)

Research

Duplex ultrasonography, magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography for diagnosis and assessment of symptomatic, lower limb peripheral arterial disease: systematic review

¹ Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York YO10 5DD, ² Academic Unit of Medical Physics, University of Leeds, Leeds, ³ Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, ⁴ Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, York

Objectives To determine the diagnostic accuracy of duplex ultrasonography, magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography, alone or in combination, for the assessment of lower limb peripheral arterial disease; to evaluate the impact of these assessment methods on management of patients and outcomes; and to evaluate the evidence regarding attitudes of patients to these technologies and summarise available data on adverse events.

Design Systematic review.

Methods Searches of 11 electronic databases (to April 2005), six journals, and reference lists of included papers for relevant studies. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Diagnostic accuracy studies were assessed for quality with the QUADAS checklist.

Results 107 studies met the inclusion criteria; 58 studies provided data on diagnostic accuracy, one on outcomes in patients, four on attitudes of patients, and 44 on adverse events. Quality assessment highlighted limitations in the methods and quality of reporting. Most of the included studies reported results by arterial segment, rather than by limb or by patient, which does not account for the clustering of segments within patients, so specificities may be overstated. For the detection of stenosis of 50% or more in a lower limb vessel, contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography had the highest diagnostic accuracy with a median sensitivity of 95% (range 92-99.5%) and median specificity of 97% (64-99%). The results were 91% (89-99%) and 91% (83-97%) for computed tomography angiography and 88% (80-98%) and 96% (89-99%) for duplex ultrasonography. A controlled trial reported no significant differences in outcomes in patients after treatment plans based on duplex ultrasonography alone or conventional contrast angiography alone, though in 22% of patients supplementary contrast angiography was needed to form a treatment plan. The limited evidence available suggested that patients preferred magnetic resonance angiography (with or without contrast) to contrast angiography, with half expressing no preference between magnetic resonance angiography or duplex ultrasonography (among patients with no contraindications for magnetic resonance angiography, such as claustrophobia). Where data on adverse events were available, magnetic resonance angiography was associated with the highest proportion of adverse events, but these were mild. The most severe adverse events, although rare, were mainly associated with contrast angiography.

Conclusions Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography seems to be more specific than computed tomography angiography (that is, better at ruling out stenosis over 50%) and more sensitive than duplex ultrasonography (that is, better at ruling in stenosis over 50%) and was generally preferred by patients over contrast angiography. Computed tomography angiography was also preferred by patients over contrast angiography; no data on patients' preference between duplex ultrasonography and contrast angiography were available. Where available, contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography might be a viable alternative to contrast angiography.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Gadolinium contrast may be risky in kidney disease

Peter C Thomson, Tara A Collidge, Patrick B Mark, and Jamie P Traynor
BMJ 2007 334: 1335-1336. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Lives lived

Trish Groves
BMJ 2007 334: 0. [Extract] [Full Text]

Diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease of the lower limb

Andrew W Bradbury and Donald J Adam
BMJ 2007 334: 1229-1230. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

Patrick M Bossuyt, Johannes B Reitsma, David E Bruns, Constantine A Gatsonis, Paul P Glasziou, Les M Irwig, Jeroen G Lijmer, David Moher, Drummond Rennie, and Henrica C W de Vet
BMJ 2003 326: 41-44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

ABC of arterial and venous disease: Chronic lower limb ischaemia

Jonathan D Beard
BMJ 2000 320: 854-857. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• (2007). Noninvasive Imaging for Peripheral Arterial Disease. JWatch General 2007: 3-3 [Full text]  
• Thomson, P. C, Collidge, T. A, Mark, P. B, Traynor, J. P (2007). Gadolinium contrast may be risky in kidney disease. BMJ 334: 1335-1336 [Full text]  
• Bradbury, A. W, Adam, D. J (2007). Diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease of the lower limb. BMJ 334: 1229-1230 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

The Retina - A Window to Systemic Microcirculation?

Ning Cheung, et al.
bmj.com, 18 Jun 2007 [Full text]

Digital Subtraction Angiography: Gold standard for detecting peripheral arterial disease.

S Kapoor
bmj.com, 19 Jun 2007 [Full text]

Popliteal artery patency – a new bedside test

Habib u Rehman
bmj.com, 19 Jun 2007 [Full text]

Gadolinium contrast - possible risks to kidney patients

Peter C Thomson, et al.
bmj.com, 20 Jun 2007 [Full text]

'New' Clinical sign

William R Saywell
bmj.com, 5 Jul 2007 [Full text]

Lack of clinical experts leeds to reductions of practical values of evidence—based medicine reports.

Stefan Puig
bmj.com, 6 Jul 2007 [Full text]

Re: 'New' Clinical sign

William R Saywell
bmj.com, 17 Jul 2007 [Full text]