These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Abdominopelvic and lower extremity deep venous thrombosis: evaluation with contrast-enhanced MR venography with a blood-pool agent.
    Author: Huang SY, Kim CY, Miller MJ, Gupta RT, Lessne ML, Horvath JJ, Boll DT, Evans PD, Befera NT, Krishnan P, Chan JL, Merkle EM.
    Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2013 Jul; 201(1):208-14. PubMed ID: 23789677.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate contrast-enhanced (CE) MR venography (MRV) with a blood-pool agent for detection of abdominopelvic and lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) compared with a conventional unenhanced gradient-recalled echo (GRE) MRV technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was performed on 30 patients (mean age, 52.7 years; 15 men and 15 women) referred for MRV between March 2010 and November 2010 for evaluation of lower extremity or abdominopelvic DVT. All patients underwent a GRE sequence followed by a CE T1-weighted sequence with gadofosveset, a blood-pool agent. The abdominopelvic and lower extremity venous system was divided into 13 segments. The presence of acute or chronic DVT was assessed by six radiologists, as well as qualitative and quantitative assessments of each venous segment. Image acquisition and interpretation times were also tabulated. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity for acute DVT were 91.0% and 99.8%, respectively, on CE MRV compared with 80.8% and 95.8%, respectively, on GRE MRV (p = 0.077 and p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity for chronic DVT were 84.4% and 98.4%, respectively, on CE MRV and 64.5% and 95.6%, respectively, on GRE MRV (p < 0.001 for both). Subjective ratings of vein visualization, signal homogeneity, and confidence pertaining to DVT diagnosis were significantly higher with the CE images (p < 0.001). The contrast-to-noise ratio for CE images was similar or significantly higher for all venous segments. Image acquisition and radiologist interpretation times on the CE studies were decreased (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Gadofosveset-enhanced MRV had equal or higher sensitivity and specificity for detection of DVT than did GRE MRV, with decreased time for image acquisition and interpretation.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]