Imaging peripheral arterial disease: a randomized controlled trial comparing contrast-enhanced MR angiography and multi-detector row CT angiography.
PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate clinical utility, patient outcomes, and costs of contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography compared with multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) angiography for initial imaging in the diagnostic work-up of patients with peripheral arterial disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Patients referred for diagnostic imaging work-up to evaluate the feasibility of a revascularization procedure were randomly assigned to undergo either MR angiography or CT angiography. Clinical utility was assessed with therapeutic confidence (scale of 0-10) at initial imaging and with the need for additional imaging. Patient outcomes included ankle-brachial index, maximum walking distance, change in clinical status, and health-related quality of life. Actual diagnostic and therapeutic costs were calculated from the hospital perspective. Differences between group means were calculated with unpaired t tests and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 157 consecutive patients with peripheral arterial disease were prospectively randomized to undergo MR angiography (51 men, 27 women; mean age, 63 years) or CT angiography (50 men, 29 women; mean age, 64 years). For one of the 78 patients in the MR group, no data were available. Mean confidence for MR angiography (7.7) was slightly lower than that for CT angiography (8.0, P = .8). During 6 months of follow-up, 13 patients in the MR group compared with 10 patients in the CT group underwent additional vascular imaging (P = .5). Although not statistically significant, there was a consistent trend of less improvement in the MR group across all patient outcomes. The average cost for diagnostic imaging was 359 ($438) higher in the MR group than in the CT group (95% confidence interval: 209, 511 [$255, $623]; P < .001). Therapeutic costs were higher in the MR group, but the difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that CT angiography has some advantages over MR angiography in the initial evaluation of peripheral arterial disease.
|Keywords||*Tomography, X-Ray Computed/economics, Aged, Angiography/economics/*methods, Chi-Square Distribution, Contrast Media, Costs and Cost Analysis, Female, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Angiography/economics/*methods, Male, Middle aged, Peripheral Vascular Diseases/*diagnosis/radiography, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Questionnaires|
|Persistent URL||dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2363041140, hdl.handle.net/1765/13868|
Ouwendijk, R., de Vries, M., Pattynama, P.M.T., van Sambeek, M.R.H.M., Hunink, M.G.M., Haan, M.G., … Engelshoven, J.M.. (2005). Imaging peripheral arterial disease: a randomized controlled trial comparing contrast-enhanced MR angiography and multi-detector row CT angiography.. Radiology, 236(3), 1094–1103. doi:10.1148/radiol.2363041140