Advances in diagnostic imaging for peripheral arterial disease

Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy

Volumn 8, Issue 10, 2010, Pages 1447-1455

  Tang, Gale L ^a   Chin, Jason ^b   Kibbe, Melina R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

computed tomography angiography; digital subtraction angiography; duplex ultrasonography; intravascular ultrasound; magnetic resonance angiography; peripheral arterial disease; peripheral endovascular intervention

Indexed keywords

FLUORODEOXYGLUCOSE; RADIOISOTOPE;

ARTERY DISEASE; ATHEROSCLEROSIS; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC ANGIOGRAPHY; DIGITAL SUBTRACTION ANGIOGRAPHY; DOPPLER ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MOLECULAR IMAGING; NEAR INFRARED SPECTROSCOPY; PATIENT SELECTION; POSITRON EMISSION TOMOGRAPHY; RADIODIAGNOSIS; REVIEW; SINGLE PHOTON EMISSION COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY;

ANGIOGRAPHY; ANIMALS; HUMANS; PERIPHERAL ARTERIAL DISEASE; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, DOPPLER, DUPLEX; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, INTERVENTIONAL;

EID: 77958103570     PISSN: 14779072     EISSN: 17448344     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1586/erc.10.134     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Elgzyri T, Ekberg G, Peterson K, Lundell A, Apelqvist J. Can duplex arterial ultrasonography reduce unnecessary angiography? J. Wound Care 17(11), 497-500 (2008).
2. Hingorani AP, Ascher E, Marks N et al. Limitations of and lessons learned from clinical experience of 1,020 duplex arteriography. Vascular 16(3), 147-153 (2008).
3. Schwarcz TH, Gatz VL, Little S, Geddings CF. Arterial duplex ultrasound is the most cost-effective, noninvasive diagnostic imaging modality before treatment of lower-extremity arterial occlusive disease. J. Vasc. Ultrasound 33(2), 75-79 (2009).
4. Leiner T, Kessels AG, Nelemans PJ et al. Peripheral arterial disease: comparison of color duplex US and contrast-enhanced MR angiography for diagnosis. Radiology 235(2), 699-708 (2005).
5. Favaretto E, Pili C, Amato A et al. Analysis of agreement between duplex ultrasound scanning and arteriography in patients with lower limb artery disease. J. Cardiovasc. Med. (Hagerstown) 8(5), 337-341 (2007).
6. Langer S, Kramer N, Mommertz G et al. Unmasking pedal arteries in patients with critical ischemia using time-resolved contrast-enhanced 3D MRA. J. Vasc. Surg. 49(5), 1196-1202 (2009).
7. Coff SB, Ubbink DT, Zwiers I, van Gurp JA, Hanson D, Legemate DA. Contrast-enhanced duplex scanning of crural arteries by means of continuous infusion of Levovist. J. Vasc. Surg. 39(3), 517-522 (2004).
8. Janvier MA, Destrempes F, Soulez G, Cloutier G. Validation of a new 3D-US imaging robotic system to detect and quantify lower limb arterial stenoses. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc. 2007, 339-342 (2007).
9. Hingorani A, Ascher E, Marks N et al. Comparison of computed tomography angiography to contrast arteriography for patients undergoing evaluation for lower extremity revascularization. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 41(2), 115-119 (2007).
10. Willmann JK, Baumert B, Schertler T et al. Aortoiliac and lower extremity arteries assessed with 16-detector row CT angiography: prospective comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 236(3), 1083-1093 (2005).
11. Shareghi S, Gopal A, Gul K et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64 multidetector computed tomographic angiography in peripheral vascular disease. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 75(1), 23-31 (2010).
12. Cernic S, Pozzi Mucelli F, Pellegrin A, Pizzolato R, Cova MA. Comparison between 64-row CT angiography and digital subtraction angiography in the study of lower extremities: personal experience. Radiol. Med. 114(7), 1115-1129 (2009).
13. Brockmann C, Jochum S, Sadick M et al. Dual-energy CT angiography in peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 32(4), 630-637 (2009).
14. Bui BT, Miller S, Mildenberger P, Sam A 2nd, Sheng R. Comparison of contrast-enhanced MR angiography to intraarterial digital subtraction angiography for evaluation of peripheral arterial occlusive disease: results of a Phase III multicenter trial. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 31(6), 1402-1410 (2010).
15. Leiner T. Magnetic resonance angiography of abdominal and lower extremity vasculature. Top. Magn. Reson. Imaging 16(1), 21-66 (2005).
16. Weinreb JC, Abu-Alfa AK. Gadolinium-based contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fbrosis: why did it happen and what have we learned? J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 30(6), 1236-1239 (2009).
17. Wertman R, Altun E, Martin DR et al. Risk of nephrogenic systemic fbrosis: evaluation of gadolinium chelate contrast agents at four American universities. Radiology 248(3), 799-806 (2008).
18. Dinter DJ, Neff KW, Visciani G et al. Peripheral bolus-chase MR angiography: analysis of risk factors for nondiagnostic image quality of the calf vessels-a combined retrospective and prospective study AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 193(1), 234-240 (2009).
19. Lim RP, Jacob JS, Hecht EM et al. Time-resolved lower extremity MRA with temporal interpolation and stochastic spiral trajectories: preliminary clinical experience. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 31(3), 663-672 (2010).
20. Nielsen YW, Eiberg JP, Logager VB, Just S, Schroeder TV, Thomsen HS. Whole-body magnetic resonance angiography with additional steady-state acquisition of the infragenicular arteries in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol. 33(3), 484-491 (2010).
21. Berg F, Bangard C, Bovenschulte H et al. Feasibility of peripheral contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 Tesla with a hybrid technique: comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Invest. Radiol. 43(9), 642-649 (2008).
22. Kramer H, Michaely HJ, Matschl V, Schmitt P, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. High-resolution magnetic resonance angiography of the lower extremities with a dedicated 36-element matrix coil at 3 Tesla. Invest. Radiol. 42(6), 477-483 (2007).
23. Gerretsen SC, le Maire TF, Miller S et al. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR angiography of peripheral arteries. Radiology 255(3), 988-1000 (2010).
24. Eslami MH, Csikesz N, Schanzer A, Messina LM. Peripheral arterial interventions: trends in market share and outcomes by specialty, 1998-2005. J. Vasc. Surg. 50(5), 1071-1078 (2009).
25. Bechara CF, Annambhotla S, Lin PH. Access site management with vascular closure devices for percutaneous transarterial procedures. J. Vasc. Surg DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.04.079 (2010) (Epub ahead of print).
26. Engelbert TL, Scholten A, Thompson K, Spivack A, Kansal N. Early ambulation after percutaneous femoral access with use of closure devices and hemostatic agents. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 24(4), 518-523 (2010).
27. Kashyap VS, Pavkov ML, Bishop PD et al. Angiography underestimates peripheral atherosclerosis: lumenography revisited. J. Endovasc. Ther. 15(1), 117-125 (2008).
28. Madhusudhan KS, Sharma S, Srivastava DN et al. Comparison of intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography using carbon dioxide by 'home made' delivery system and conventional iodinated contrast media in the evaluation of peripheral arterial occlusive disease of the lower limbs. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 53(1), 40-49 (2009).
29. Arthurs ZM, Bishop PD, Feiten LE, Eagleton MJ, Clair DG, Kashyap VS. Evaluation of peripheral atherosclerosis: a comparative analysis of angiography and intravascular ultrasound imaging. J. Vasc. Surg. 51(4), 933-938 (2010).
30. Pearce BJ, Jordan WD Jr. Using IVUS during EVAR and TEVAR: improving patient outcomes. Semin. Vasc. Surg. 22(3), 172-180 (2009).
31. Diethrich EB, Irshad K, Reid DB. Virtual histology and color fow intravascular ultrasound in peripheral interventions. Semin. Vasc. Surg. 19(3), 155-162 (2006).
32. Kohno H, Sueda S. Rupture of a peripheral popliteal artery plaque documented by intravascular ultrasound: a case report. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv. 74(7), 1102-1106 (2009).
33. El-Haddad G, Zhuang H, Gupta N, Alavi A. Evolving role of positron emission tomography in the management of patients with infammatory and other benign disorders. Semin. Nucl. Med. 34(4), 313-329 (2004).
34. 18F-FDG PET: carotid, iliac, and femoral uptake reproducibility, quantifcation methods, and recommendations. J. Nucl. Med. 49(6), 871-878 (2008).
35. Sinusas AJ. Imaging of angiogenesis. J. Nucl. Cardiol. 11(5), 617-633 (2004).
36. Buck AK, Herrmann K, Stargardt T, Dechow T, Krause BJ, Schreyogg J. Economic evaluation of PET and PET/CT in oncology: evidence and methodologic approaches. J. Nucl. Med. 51(3), 401-412 (2010).
37. Greenman RL, Panasyuk S, Wang X et al. Early changes in the skin microcirculation and muscle metabolism of the diabetic foot. Lancet 366(9498), 1711-1717 (2005).
38. Nouvong A, Hoogwerf B, Mohler E, Davis B, Tajaddini A, Medenilla E. Evaluation of diabetic foot ulcer healing with hyperspectral imaging of oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin. Diabetes Care 32(11), 2056-2061 (2009).
39. Cancio LC, Batchinsky AI, Mansfeld JR et al. Hyperspectral imaging: a new approach to the diagnosis of hemorrhagic shock. J. Trauma 60(5), 1087-1095 (2006).
40. Khaodhiar L, Dinh T, Schomacker KT et al. The use of medical hyperspectral technology to evaluate microcirculatory changes in diabetic foot ulcers and to predict clinical outcomes. Diabetes Care 30(4), 903-910 (2007).
41. Jaffer FA, Libby P, Weissleder R. Molecular and cellular imaging of atherosclerosis: emerging applications. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 47(7), 1328-1338 (2006).
42. Osborn EA, Jaffer FA. Advances in molecular imaging of atherosclerotic vascular disease. Curr. Opin. Cardiol. 23(6), 620-628 (2008).
43. Nahrendorf M, Zhang H, Hembrador S et al. Nanoparticle PET-CT imaging of macrophages in infammatory atherosclerosis. Circulation 117(3), 379-387 (2008).
44. Jaffer FA, Kim DE, Quinti L et al. Optical visualization of cathepsin K activity in atherosclerosis with a novel, protease-activatable fuorescence sensor. Circulation 115(17), 2292-2298 (2007).