OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) in detecting haemodynamically significant arterial stenosis or occlusion in patients with critical limb ischaemia (CLI) or intermittent claudication (IC). METHODS: Medline and Embase were searched for studies comparing CTA or CE-MRA with digital subtraction angiography as a reference standard, including patients with CLI or IC. Outcome measures were aortotibial arterial stenosis of more than 50 % or occlusion. Methodological quality of studies was assessed using QUADAS. RESULTS: Out of 5,693 articles, 12 CTA and 30 CE-MRA studies were included, respectively evaluating 673 and 1,404 participants. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were respectively 96 % (95 % CI, 93-98 %) and 95 % (95 % CI, 92-97 %) for CTA, and 93 % (95 % CI, 91-95 %) and 94 % (95 % CI, 93-96 %) for CE-MRA. Regression analysis showed that the prevalence of CLI in individual studies was not an independent predictor of sensitivity and specificity for either technique. Methodological quality of studies was moderate to good. CONCLUSION: CTA and CE-MRA are accurate techniques for evaluating disease severity of aortotibial arteries in patients with CLI or IC. No significant differences in the diagnostic performance of the two techniques between patients with CLI and IC were found. KEY POINTS: • Computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography can both demonstrate arterial disease. • CTA and CE-MRA can both accurately evaluate arteries in peripheral arterial disease. • Diagnostic performances of critical limb ischaemia and intermittent claudication are not different. • Separate imaging technique of tibial arteries by CE-MRA is preferred. • CTA and CE-MRA can distinguish confidently between high-grade stenoses and occlusions.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) in detecting haemodynamically significant arterial stenosis or occlusion in patients with critical limb ischaemia (CLI) or intermittent claudication (IC). METHODS: Medline and Embase were searched for studies comparing CTA or CE-MRA with digital subtraction angiography as a reference standard, including patients with CLI or IC. Outcome measures were aortotibial arterial stenosis of more than 50 % or occlusion. Methodological quality of studies was assessed using QUADAS. RESULTS: Out of 5,693 articles, 12 CTA and 30 CE-MRA studies were included, respectively evaluating 673 and 1,404 participants. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were respectively 96 % (95 % CI, 93-98 %) and 95 % (95 % CI, 92-97 %) for CTA, and 93 % (95 % CI, 91-95 %) and 94 % (95 % CI, 93-96 %) for CE-MRA. Regression analysis showed that the prevalence of CLI in individual studies was not an independent predictor of sensitivity and specificity for either technique. Methodological quality of studies was moderate to good. CONCLUSION: CTA and CE-MRA are accurate techniques for evaluating disease severity of aortotibial arteries in patients with CLI or IC. No significant differences in the diagnostic performance of the two techniques between patients with CLI and IC were found. KEY POINTS: • Computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography can both demonstrate arterial disease. • CTA and CE-MRA can both accurately evaluate arteries in peripheral arterial disease. • Diagnostic performances of critical limb ischaemia and intermittent claudication are not different. • Separate imaging technique of tibial arteries by CE-MRA is preferred. • CTA and CE-MRA can distinguish confidently between high-grade stenoses and occlusions.
Authors: P Lundin; A Svensson; E Henriksen; T Jonason; C Forssell; B Bäckbro; M Bodlund; I Ringqvist Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: M Lenhart; T Herold; M Völk; J Seitz; C Manke; N Zorger; U Dorenbeck; M Requardt; W R Nitz; P Kasprzak; S Feuerbach; J Link Journal: Rofo Date: 2000-12
Authors: Domenico De Santis; Carlo N De Cecco; U Joseph Schoepf; John W Nance; Ricardo T Yamada; Brooke A Thomas; Katharina Otani; Brian E Jacobs; D Alan Turner; Julian L Wichmann; Marwen Eid; Akos Varga-Szemes; Damiano Caruso; Katharine L Grant; Bernhard Schmidt; Thomas J Vogl; Andrea Laghi; Moritz H Albrecht Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Shailesh Agarwal; William R Lloyd; Shawn J Loder; Michael T Chung; Charles Hwang; Michael D Morris; Benjamin Levi Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: C Schabel; M N Bongers; D Ketelsen; R Syha; C Thomas; G Homann; M Notohamiprodjo; K Nikolaou; F Bamberg Journal: Radiologe Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 0.635