Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Am Coll Radiol ; 17(5S): S315-S322, 2020 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32370975

ABSTRACT

This publication includes the appropriate imaging modalities to assess suspected deep vein thrombosis in the upper extremities. Ultrasound duplex Doppler is the most appropriate imaging modality to assess upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. It is a noninvasive test, which can be performed at the bedside and used for serial evaluations. Ultrasound can also directly identify thrombus by visualizing echogenic material in the vein and by lack of compression of the vein walls from manual external pressure. It can indirectly identify thrombus from altered blood-flow patterns. It is most appropriate in the evaluation of veins peripheral to the brachiocephalic vein. CT venography and MR venography are not first-line imaging tests, but are appropriate to assess the central venous structures, or to assess the full range of venous structures from the hand to the right atrium. Catheter venography is appropriate if therapy is required. Radionuclide venography and chest radiography are usually not appropriate to assess upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.


Subject(s)
Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis , Computed Tomography Angiography , Diagnostic Imaging , Humans , Societies, Medical , United States , Upper Extremity/diagnostic imaging , Upper Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis/diagnostic imaging
2.
J Am Coll Radiol ; 14(5S): S177-S188, 2017 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28473074

ABSTRACT

Upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality with mortality rates as high as 14%. This document addresses the indications for imaging UGIB that is nonvariceal and unrelated to portal hypertension. The four variants are derived with respect to upper endoscopy. For the first three, it is presumed that upper endoscopy has been performed, with three potential initial outcomes: endoscopy reveals arterial bleeding source, endoscopy confirms UGIB without a clear source, and negative endoscopy. The fourth variant, "postsurgical and traumatic causes of UGIB; endoscopy contraindicated" is considered separately because upper endoscopy is not performed. When endoscopy identifies the presence and location of bleeding but bleeding cannot be controlled endoscopically, catheter-based arteriography with treatment is an appropriate next study. CT angiography (CTA) is comparable with angiography as a diagnostic next step. If endoscopy demonstrates a bleed but the endoscopist cannot identify the bleeding source, angiography or CTA can be typically performed and both are considered appropriate. In the event of an obscure UGIB, angiography and CTA have been shown to be equivalent in identifying the bleeding source; CT enterography may be an alternative to CTA to find an intermittent bleeding source. In the postoperative or traumatic setting when endoscopy is contraindicated, primary angiography, CTA, and CT with intravenous contrast are considered appropriate. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.


Subject(s)
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Contraindications, Procedure , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/classification , Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage/etiology , Humans , Postoperative Hemorrhage , Radiology , Societies, Medical , United States
3.
Semin Intervent Radiol ; 32(1): 49-53, 2015 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25762848

ABSTRACT

As the incidence of primary and metastatic liver cancer increases, minimally invasive treatment methods such as transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) have gained momentum as their efficacy and safety profile have been validated. Complications of TACE are rare and typically well tolerated. A unique complication is tumor rupture with hemorrhage. Reports of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) rupture after TACE are limited. It is critical to recognize this complication and understand the treatment options, which range from conservative to surgical management. This report describes a case of HCC rupture following TACE successfully managed with coil embolization.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...