PURPOSE: To summarize and compare the published data on gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) angiography and color-guided duplex ultrasonography (US) for the work-up for peripheral arterial disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies published between January 1984 and November 1998 were included if (a) gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography and/or color-guided duplex US were performed for evaluation of arterial stenoses and occlusions in the work-up for peripheral arterial disease of the lower extremities, (b) conventional angiography was the reference standard, and (c) absolute numbers of true-positive, false-negative, true-negative, and false-positive results were available or derivable. RESULTS: With a random effects model, pooled sensitivity for MR angiography (97.5% [95% CI: 95.7%, 99.3%]) was higher than that for duplex US (87.6% [95% CI: 84.4%, 90.8%]). Pooled specificities were similar: 96.2% (95% CI: 94.4%, 97.9%) for MR angiography and 94.7% (95% CI: 93.2%, 96.2%) for duplex US. Summary receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated better discriminatory power for MR angiography than for duplex US. Regression coefficients for MR angiography versus US were 1.67 (95% CI: -0.23, 3.56) with adjustment for covariates, 2.11 (95% CI: 0.12, 4.09) without such adjustment, and 1.73 (95% CI: 0.44, 3.02) with a random effects model. CONCLUSION: Gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography has better discriminatory power than does color-guided duplex US and is a highly sensitive and specific method, as compared with conventional angiography, for the work-up for peripheral arterial disease.

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam

Visser, K., & Hunink, M. (2000). Peripheral arterial disease: gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography versus color-guided duplex US--a meta-analysis. Radiology. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/9402