| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
2000 ARRS Executive Council Award I |
1 All authors: Department of Radiology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Milstein Hospital Bldg., 2nd Fl., Fort Washington Ave., New York, NY 10032.
OBJECTIVE. In patients undergoing a combined CT angiographic and CT venographic protocol, the accuracy of helical CT venography for the detection of deep venous thrombosis was compared with that of lower extremity sonography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS. Patients who had undergone a combined CT angiographic and CT venographic protocol and sonography of the lower extremities within 1 week were identified. The final reports were evaluated for the presence or absence of deep venous thrombosis. Statistical measures for the identification of deep venous thrombosis with helical CT venography were calculated. In each true-positive case, the location of the thrombus identified with both techniques was compared. All false-positive and false-negative cases were reviewed to identify the reasons for the discrepancies.
RESULTS. Seventy-four patients were included. There were eight patients (11%) with true-positive findings, 61 patients (82%) with true-negative findings, four patients (5%) with false-positive findings, and one patient (1%) with a false-negative finding. When comparing helical CT venography with sonography for the detection of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis, the sensitivity measured 89%; specificity, 94%; positive predictive value, 67%; negative predictive value, 98%; and accuracy, 93%. Of the eight true-positive cases, five had sites of thrombus that were in agreement on both CT venography and sonography. Of the five discordant cases, four were false-positives and one was a false-negative. Possible explanations for all discrepancies were identified.
CONCLUSION. Compared with sonography, CT venography had a 93% accuracy in identifying deep venous thrombosis. However, the positive predictive value of only 67% for CT venography suggests that sonography should be used to confirm the presence of isolated deep venous thrombosis before anticoagulation is initiated. In addition, interpretation of CT venography should be performed with knowledge of certain pitfalls.
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  W. Lee, J. W. Chung, Y. H. Yin, H. J. Jae, S. J. Kim, J. Ha, and J. H. Park Three-Dimensional CT Venography of Varicose Veins of the Lower Extremity: Image Quality and Comparison with Doppler Sonography Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2008; 191(4): 1186 - 1191. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. P. Kalva, J. P. Jagannathan, P. F. Hahn, and S. T. Wicky Venous Thromboembolism: Indirect CT Venography during CT Pulmonary Angiography--Should the Pelvis Be Imaged? Radiology, February 1, 2008; 246(2): 605 - 611. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. Dodd Evidence-based Practice in Radiology: Steps 3 and 4--Appraise and Apply Diagnostic Radiology Literature Radiology, February 1, 2007; 242(2): 342 - 354. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Ghaye, A. Nchimi, C. T. Noukoua, and R. F. Dondelinger Does Multi-Detector Row CT Pulmonary Angiography Reduce the Incremental Value of Indirect CT Venography Compared with Single-Detector Row CT Pulmonary Angiography? Radiology, July 1, 2006; 240(1): 256 - 262. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Taffoni, J. G. Ravenel, and S. J. Ackerman Prospective Comparison of Indirect CT Venography Versus Venous Sonography in ICU Patients Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2005; 185(2): 457 - 462. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Patel and E. A. Kazerooni Helical CT for the Evaluation of Acute Pulmonary Embolism Am. J. Roentgenol., July 1, 2005; 185(1): 135 - 149. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. D. Cham, D. F. Yankelevitz, and C. I. Henschke Thromboembolic Disease Detection at Indirect CT Venography versus CT Pulmonary Angiography Radiology, February 1, 2005; 234(2): 591 - 594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. P. Kanne and T. A. Lalani Role of Computed Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Deep Venous Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism Circulation, March 30, 2004; 109(12_suppl_1): I-15 - I-21. [Abstract] [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. J. Cronan History of Venous Ultrasound J. Ultrasound Med., November 1, 2003; 22(11): 1143 - 1146. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 British Thoracic Society guidelines for the management of suspected acute pulmonary embolism Thorax, June 1, 2003; 58(6): 470 - 483. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. S. Katz, P. A. Loud, D. Bruce, A. M. Gittleman, R. Mueller, D. L. Klippenstein, and Z. D. Grossman Combined CT Venography and Pulmonary Angiography: A Comprehensive Review RadioGraphics, October 1, 2002; 22(90001): S3 - 19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Ghaye, D. Szapiro, V. Willems, and R. F. Dondelinger Pitfalls in CT Venography of Lower Limbs and Abdominal Veins Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2002; 178(6): 1465 - 1471. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Friera, N. R. Gimenez, P. Caballero, P. S. Molini, and C. Suarez Deep Vein Thrombosis: Can a Second Sonographic Examination Be Avoided? Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2002; 178(4): 1001 - 1005. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
