Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 5, Issue 12 , Pages 1176-1180 , December 2008

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® on Recurrent Symptoms Following Lower-Extremity Angioplasty

  • Frank J. Rybicki, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author and reprints: Frank J. Rybicki, MD, PhD, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Department of Radiology, RA024, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115
    • ,
  • Leelakrishna Nallamshetty, MD

      Affiliations

    • Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
    • ,
  • E. Kent Yucel, MD

      Affiliations

    • Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
    • ,
  • Stephen R. Holtzman, MD

      Affiliations

    • Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
    • ,
  • Richard A. Baum, MD

      Affiliations

    • Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
    • ,
  • W. Dennis Foley, MD

      Affiliations

    • Froedtert Hospital East, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
    • ,
  • Vincent B. Ho, MD, MBA

      Affiliations

    • Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland
    • The opinions or assertions contained herein are the private views of the author and are not to be construed as official or reflecting the views of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences or the US Department of Defense.
    • ,
  • Leena Mammen, MD

      Affiliations

    • Advanced Radiology Services, Grand Rapids, Michigan
    • ,
  • Vamsidhar R. Narra, MD

      Affiliations

    • Mallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, St. Louis, Missouri
    • ,
  • Barry Stein, MD

      Affiliations

    • Jefferson X-Ray Group Inc., Hartford, Connecticut
    • ,
  • Gregory L. Moneta, MD

      Affiliations

    • Oregon Health Science University, Portland, Oregon

References 

  1. Capek P, McLean GK, Berkowitz HD. Femoropopliteal angioplasty (Factors influencing long-term success). Circulation. 1991;83:I70–I80
  2. Johnston KW. Femoral and popliteal arteries: reanalysis of results of balloon angioplasty. Radiology. 1992;183:767–771
  3. Sabeti S, Schillinger M, Amighi J, et al. Primary patency of femoropopliteal arteries treated with nitinol versus stainless steel self-expanding stents: propensity score-adjusted analysis. Radiology. 2004;232:516–521
  4. Ahn SS, Rutherford RB, Becker GJ, et al. Reporting standards for lower extremity arterial endovascular procedures (Society for Vascular Surgery/International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery). J Vasc Surg. 1993;17:1103–1107
  5. Decrinis M, Doder S, Stark G, Pilger E. A prospective evaluation of sensitivity and specificity of the ankle/brachial index in the follow-up of superficial femoral artery occlusions treated by angioplasty. Clin Invest. 1994;72:592–597
  6. Hartmann A, Gehring A, Vallbracht C, et al. Noninvasive methods in the early detection of restenosis after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in peripheral arteries. Cardiology. 1994;84:25–32
  7. Matsi PJ, Manninen HI. Impact of different patency criteria on long-term results of femoropopliteal angioplasty: analysis of 106 consecutive patients with claudication. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1995;6:159–163
  8. Leiner T, Kessels AG, Nelemans PJ, et al. Peripheral arterial disease: comparison of color duplex US and contrast-enhanced MR angiography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2005;235:699–708
  9. Minar E, Ahmadi A, Koppensteiner R, et al. Comparison of effects of high-dose and low-dose aspirin on restenosis after femoropopliteal percutaneous transluminal angioplasty. Circulation. 1995;91:2167–2173
  10. Adriaensen ME, Kock MC, Stijnen T, et al. Peripheral arterial disease: therapeutic confidence of CT versus digital subtraction angiography and effects on additional imaging recommendations. Radiology. 2004;233:385–391
  11. Martin ML, Tay KH, Flak B, et al. Multidetector CT angiography of the aortoiliac system and lower extremities: a prospective comparison with digital subtraction angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:1085–1091
  12. Rieker O, Duber C, Schmiedt W, von Zitzewitz H, Schweden F, Thelen M. Prospective comparison of CT angiography of the legs with intraarterial digital subtraction angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:269–276
  13. 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. 2005;236:1083–1093
  14. Ofer A, Nitecki SS, Linn S, et al. Multidetector CT angiography of peripheral vascular disease: a prospective comparison with intraarterial digital subtraction angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180:719–724
  15. Ouwendijk R, Kock MC, van Dijk LC, van Sambeek MR, Stijnen T, Hunink MG. Vessel wall calcifications at multi-detector row CT angiography in patients with peripheral arterial disease: effect on clinical utility and clinical predictors. Radiology. 2006;241:603–608
  16. Ho VB, Corse WR. MR angiography of the abdominal aorta and peripheral vessels. Radiol Clin North Am. 2003;41:115–144
  17. Tatli S, Lipton MJ, Davison BD, Skorstad RB, Yucel EK. From the RSNA refresher courses: MR imaging of aortic and peripheral vascular disease. RadioGraphics. 2003;23:S59–S78
  18. Andreisek G, Pfammatter T, Goepfert K, et al. Peripheral arteries in diabetic patients: standard bolus-chase and time-resolved MR angiography. Radiology. 2007;242:610–620
  19. Elsman BH, Legemate DA, van der Heijden FH, de Vos HJ, Mali WP, Eikelboom BC. Impact of ultrasonographic duplex scanning on therapeutic decision making in lower-limb arterial disease. Br J Surg. 1995;82:630–633
  20. Baum RA, Rutter CM, Sunshine JH, et al. American College of Radiology Rapid Technology Assessment Group (Multicenter trial to evaluate vascular magnetic resonance angiography of the lower extremity). JAMA. 1995;274:875–880
  21. Davis CP, Schopke WD, Seifert B, Schneider E, Pfammatter T, Debatin JF. MR angiography of patients with peripheral arterial disease before and after transluminal angioplasty. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168:1027–1034
  22. Link J, Steffens JC, Brossmann J, Graessner J, Hackethal S, Heller M. Iliofemoral arterial occlusive disease: contrast-enhanced MR angiography for preinterventional evaluation and follow-up after stent placement. Radiology. 1999;212:371–377
  23. Lundin P, Svensson A, Henriksen E, et al. Imaging of aortoiliac arterial disease (Duplex ultrasound and MR angiography versus digital subtraction angiography). Acta Radiol. 2000;41:125–132
  24. Meaney JF, Ridgway JP, Chakraverty S, et al. Stepping-table gadolinium-enhanced digital subtraction MR angiography of the aorta and lower extremity arteries: preliminary experience. Radiology. 1999;211:59–67
  25. Mitsuzaki K, Yamashita Y, Sakaguchi T, Ogata I, Takahashi M, Hiai Y. Abdomen, pelvis, and extremities: diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced turbo MR angiography compared with conventional angiography-initial experience. Radiology. 2000;216:909–915
  26. Nelemans PJ, Leiner T, de Vet HC, van Engelshoven JM. Peripheral arterial disease: meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of MR angiography. Radiology. 2000;217:105–114
  27. Sueyoshi E, Sakamoto I, Matsuoka Y, et al. Aortoiliac and lower extremity arteries: comparison of three-dimensional dynamic contrast-enhanced subtraction MR angiography and conventional angiography. Radiology. 1999;210:683–688
  28. Visser K, Hunink MG. Peripheral arterial disease: gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography versus color-guided duplex US—a meta-analysis. Radiology. 2000;216:67–77
  29. Winchester PA, Lee HM, Khilnani NM, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional MR digital subtraction angiography of the lower extremity with x-ray angiography. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998;9:891–899
  30. Yucel EK, Kaufman JA, Geller SC, Waltman AC. Atherosclerotic occlusive disease of the lower extremity: prospective evaluation with two-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography. Radiology. 1993;187:637–641
  31. Broome DR, Girguis MS, Baron PW, Cottrell AC, Kjellin I, Kirk GA. Gadodiamide-associated nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: why radiologists should be concerned. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:586–592
  32. Ersoy H, Rybicki FJ. Biochemical safety profiles of gadolinium-based extracellular contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:1190–1197
  33. Sadowski EA, Bennett LK, Chan MR, et al. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: risk factors and incidence estimation. Radiology. 2007;243:148–157
  34. Miyazaki M, Sugiura S, Tateishi F, Wada H, Kassai Y, Abe H. Non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography using 3D ECG-synchronized half-Fourier fast spin echo. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12:776–783
  35. Miyazaki M, Takai H, Sugiura S, Wada H, Kuwahara R, Urata J. Peripheral MR angiography: separation of arteries from veins with flow-spoiled gradient pulses in electrocardiography-triggered three-dimensional half-Fourier fast spin-echo imaging. Radiology. 2003;227:890–896
  36. Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, et al. ACR guidance document for safe MR practices: 2007. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188:1447–1474
  37. US Food and Drug Administration. Gadolinium-based contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging (marketed as Magnevist, MultiHance, Omniscan, OptiMARK, ProHance). http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/InfoSheets/HCP/gcca_200705HCP.pdfAccessed October 10, 2008

PII: S1546-1440(08)00420-1

doi: 10.1016/j.jacr.2008.08.010

Journal of the American College of Radiology
Volume 5, Issue 12 , Pages 1176-1180 , December 2008

Article Tools