Deep vein thrombosis MRI: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search
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

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Deep vein thrombosis from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Triggers

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic Approach

Assessment of Clinical Probability and Risk Scores

Assessment of Probability of Subsequent VTE and Risk Scores

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Ultrasound

Venography

CT

MRI

Other Imaging Findings

Treatment

Treatment Approach

Medical Therapy

IVC Filter

Invasive Therapy

Surgery

Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Special Scenario

Upper extremity DVT

Recurrence

Pregnancy

Trials

Landmark Trials

Case Studies

Case #1

Deep vein thrombosis MRI On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Deep vein thrombosis MRI

CDC on Deep vein thrombosis MRI

Deep vein thrombosis MRI in the news

Blogs on Deep vein thrombosis MRI

Directions to Hospitals Treating Deep vein thrombosis

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

  1. 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.

Template:WH Template:WS