Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Differentiation of deep venous thrombosis from femoral vein mixing artifact on routine abdominopelvic CT.
Doshi, Ankur M; Hoffman, David; Kierans, Andrea S; Ream, Justin M; Rosenkrantz, Andrew B.
Afiliação
  • Doshi AM; Department of Radiology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA. ankur.doshi@nyumc.org.
  • Hoffman D; Department of Radiology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
  • Kierans AS; Department of Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital / Weill Cornell Medical Center, 525 East 68th Street, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
  • Ream JM; Department of Radiology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
  • Rosenkrantz AB; Department of Radiology, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, 550 First Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
Abdom Imaging ; 40(8): 3191-5, 2015 Oct.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26296540
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

The objective of this study is to assess the performance of qualitative and quantitative imaging features for the differentiation of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) from mixing artifact on routine portal venous phase abdominopelvic CT.

METHODS:

This retrospective study included 40 adult patients with a femoral vein filling defect on portal venous phase CT and a Duplex ultrasound (n = 36) or catheter venogram (n = 4) to confirm presence or absence of DVT. Two radiologists (R1, R2) assessed the femoral veins for various qualitative and quantitative features.

RESULTS:

60% of patients were confirmed to have DVT and 40% had mixing artifact. Features with significantly greater frequency in DVT than mixing artifact (all p ≤ 0.006) were central location (R1 90% vs. 28%; R2 96% vs. 31%), sharp margin (R1 83% vs. 28%; R2 96% vs. 31%), venous expansion (R1 48% vs. 6%, R2 56% vs. 6%), and venous wall enhancement (R1 62% vs. 0%; R2 48% vs. 0%). DVT exhibited significantly lower mean attenuation than mixing artifact (R1 42.1 ± 20.2 vs. 57.1 ± 23.6 HU; R2 43.6 ± 19.4 vs. 58.8 ± 23.4 HU, p ≤ 0.031) and a significantly larger difference in vein diameter compared to the contralateral vein (R1 0.4 ± 0.4 vs. 0.1 ± 0.2 cm; R2 0.3 ± 0.4 vs. 0.0 ± 0.1 cm, p ≤ 0.026). At multivariable analysis, central location and sharp margin were significant independent predictors of DVT for both readers (p ≤ 0.013).

CONCLUSION:

Awareness of these qualitative and quantitative imaging features may improve radiologists' confidence for differentiating femoral vein DVT and mixing artifact on routine portal venous phase CT. However, given overlap with mixing artifact, larger studies remain warranted.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X / Artefatos / Trombose Venosa / Veia Femoral Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Tomografia Computadorizada por Raios X / Artefatos / Trombose Venosa / Veia Femoral Tipo de estudo: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2015 Tipo de documento: Article