PURPOSE: Contrast venography is the gold standard for diagnosis in deep venous thrombosis (DVT); however, this technique is invasive and requires the use of potentially hazardous contrast agents. Although duplex Doppler ultrasonography is accurate in the evaluation of lower extremity DVT, it is less accurate in the assessment of the pelvic and intraabdominal veins. Magnetic resonance venography (MRV) has recently been developed, and our purpose was to determine whether MRV could accurately demonstrated DVT when compared with duplex scanning and contrast venography. METHODS: Eighty-five patients underwent contrast venography and MRV from the inferior vena cava to the popliteal veins to rule out DVT. Thirty-three of these patients also underwent duplex scanning. Blinded readings of these studies were compared for the presence or absence and extent of venous thrombosis. RESULTS: DVT was documented by contrast venography in 27 (27%) venous systems. Results of MRV and contrast venography were identical in 98 (97%) of 101 venous systems, whereas results of duplex scanning and contrast venography were identical in 40 (98%) of 41 venous systems. All DVTs identified by contrast venography were detected by MRV and duplex scanning. The discrepancies were due to false-positive MRV (3) and duplex scanning (1) results. When compared with contrast venography, MRV had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 96%, positive predictive value of 90%, and negative predictive value of 100%. For duplex scanning the sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 96%, positive predictive value was 94%, and negative predictive value was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that MRV is an accurate noninvasive venographic technique for the detection of DVT.
PURPOSE: Contrast venography is the gold standard for diagnosis in deep venous thrombosis (DVT); however, this technique is invasive and requires the use of potentially hazardous contrast agents. Although duplex Doppler ultrasonography is accurate in the evaluation of lower extremity DVT, it is less accurate in the assessment of the pelvic and intraabdominal veins. Magnetic resonance venography (MRV) has recently been developed, and our purpose was to determine whether MRV could accurately demonstrated DVT when compared with duplex scanning and contrast venography. METHODS: Eighty-five patients underwent contrast venography and MRV from the inferior vena cava to the popliteal veins to rule out DVT. Thirty-three of these patients also underwent duplex scanning. Blinded readings of these studies were compared for the presence or absence and extent of venous thrombosis. RESULTS: DVT was documented by contrast venography in 27 (27%) venous systems. Results of MRV and contrast venography were identical in 98 (97%) of 101 venous systems, whereas results of duplex scanning and contrast venography were identical in 40 (98%) of 41 venous systems. All DVTs identified by contrast venography were detected by MRV and duplex scanning. The discrepancies were due to false-positive MRV (3) and duplex scanning (1) results. When compared with contrast venography, MRV had a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 96%, positive predictive value of 90%, and negative predictive value of 100%. For duplex scanning the sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 96%, positive predictive value was 94%, and negative predictive value was 100%. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that MRV is an accurate noninvasive venographic technique for the detection of DVT.
Authors: Shannon M Bates; Roman Jaeschke; Scott M Stevens; Steven Goodacre; Philip S Wells; Matthew D Stevenson; Clive Kearon; Holger J Schunemann; Mark Crowther; Stephen G Pauker; Regina Makdissi; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Venkatesh Mani; Nadia Alie; Sarayu Ramachandran; Philip M Robson; Cecilia Besa; Gregory Piazza; Michele Mercuri; Michael Grosso; Bachir Taouli; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Zahi A Fayad Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Danielle Menosi Gualandro; Pai Ching Yu; Bruno Caramelli; André Coelho Marques; Daniela Calderaro; Luciana Savoy Fornari; Claudio Pinho; Alina Coutinho Rodrigues Feitosa; Carisi Anne Polanczyk; Carlos Eduardo Rochitte; Carlos Jardim; Carolina L Z Vieira; Debora Y M Nakamura; Denise Iezzi; Dirk Schreen; Eduardo Leal Adam; Elbio Antonio D'Amico; Emerson Q de Lima; Emmanuel de Almeida Burdmann; Enrique Indalecio Pachón Mateo; Fabiana Goulart Marcondes Braga; Fabio S Machado; Flavio J de Paula; Gabriel Assis Lopes do Carmo; Gilson Soares Feitosa-Filho; Gustavo Faibischew Prado; Heno Ferreira Lopes; João R C Fernandes; José J G de Lima; Luciana Sacilotto; Luciano Ferreira Drager; Luciano Janussi Vacanti; Luis Eduardo Paim Rohde; Luis F L Prada; Luis Henrique Wolff Gowdak; Marcelo Luiz Campos Vieira; Maristela Camargo Monachini; Milena Frota Macatrão-Costa; Milena Ribeiro Paixão; Mucio Tavares de Oliveira; Patricia Cury; Paula R Villaça; Pedro Silvio Farsky; Rinaldo F Siciliano; Roberto Henrique Heinisch; Rogerio Souza; Sandra F M Gualandro; Tarso Augusto Duenhas Accorsi; Wilson Mathias Journal: Arq Bras Cardiol Date: 2017 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Thomas J Kiernan; Bryan P Yan; Roberto J Cubeddu; Pablo Rengifo-Moreno; Vishal Gupta; Ignacio Inglessis; MingMing Ning; Zareh N Demirjian; Michael R Jaff; Ferdinando S Buonanno; Robert M Schainfeld; Igor F Palacios Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-01-29 Impact factor: 7.914