Deep vein thrombosis MRI: Difference between revisions
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
==Overview== | ==Overview== | ||
Noninvasive technique like ultrasonography and impedance plethysmography are fairly accurate ways to diagnose deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in the legs. But, both tests miss calf-vein thromboses, repeat testing often is required when initial tests are negative, and ability to assess pelvic veins is limited. Magnetic resonance venography has an important role in diagnosis when contrast venography cannot be performed due to patients allergy to contrast material or in renal insufficiency. Magnetic resonance venography was found to have 100% sensitivity and 96% specificity, in a double blinded study involving 85 patients.<ref name="pmid8230557">{{cite journal| author=Carpenter JP, Holland GA, Baum RA, Owen RS, Carpenter JT, Cope C| title=Magnetic resonance venography for the detection of deep venous thrombosis: comparison with contrast venography and duplex Doppler ultrasonography. | journal=J Vasc Surg | year= 1993 | volume= 18 | issue= 5 | pages= 734-41 | pmid=8230557 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=8230557 }} </ref> | Noninvasive technique like ultrasonography and impedance plethysmography are fairly accurate ways to diagnose deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in the legs. But, both tests miss calf-vein thromboses, repeat testing often is required when initial tests are negative, and ability to assess pelvic veins is limited. Magnetic resonance venography has an important role in diagnosis when contrast venography cannot be performed due to patients allergy to contrast material or in renal insufficiency. Magnetic resonance venography was compared with contrast venography, and was found to have 100% sensitivity and 96% specificity, in a double blinded study involving 85 patients suspected of having DVT.<ref name="pmid8230557">{{cite journal| author=Carpenter JP, Holland GA, Baum RA, Owen RS, Carpenter JT, Cope C| title=Magnetic resonance venography for the detection of deep venous thrombosis: comparison with contrast venography and duplex Doppler ultrasonography. | journal=J Vasc Surg | year= 1993 | volume= 18 | issue= 5 | pages= 734-41 | pmid=8230557 | doi= | pmc= | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=sumsearch.org/cite&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=8230557 }} </ref> In this study, 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. Thus it was concluded that MRV is an accurate noninvasive venographic technique for the detection of DVT. | ||
{{main|Magnetic resonance angiography}} | {{main|Magnetic resonance angiography}} | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 03:19, 28 December 2011
Editors-in-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. Associate Editor-In-Chief: Ujjwal Rastogi, MBBS [1]
|
Deep Vein Thrombosis Microchapters |
|
Diagnosis |
|---|
|
Treatment |
|
Special Scenario |
|
Trials |
|
Case Studies |
|
Deep vein thrombosis MRI On the Web |
|
Risk calculators and risk factors for Deep vein thrombosis MRI |
Overview
Noninvasive technique like ultrasonography and impedance plethysmography are fairly accurate ways to diagnose deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) in the legs. But, both tests miss calf-vein thromboses, repeat testing often is required when initial tests are negative, and ability to assess pelvic veins is limited. Magnetic resonance venography has an important role in diagnosis when contrast venography cannot be performed due to patients allergy to contrast material or in renal insufficiency. Magnetic resonance venography was compared with contrast venography, and was found to have 100% sensitivity and 96% specificity, in a double blinded study involving 85 patients suspected of having DVT.[1] In this study, 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. Thus it was concluded that MRV is an accurate noninvasive venographic technique for the detection of DVT.
References
- ↑ Carpenter JP, Holland GA, Baum RA, Owen RS, Carpenter JT, Cope C (1993). "Magnetic resonance venography for the detection of deep venous thrombosis: comparison with contrast venography and duplex Doppler ultrasonography". J Vasc Surg. 18 (5): 734–41. PMID 8230557.