DSA versus multi-detector row CT angiography in peripheral arterial disease: Randomized controlled trial
ABSTRACT To prospectively compare therapeutic confidence in, patient outcomes (in terms of quality of life) after, and the costs of digital subtraction angiography (DSA) with those of multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) angiography as the initial diagnostic imaging test in patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD).
Institutional medical ethics committee approval and patient informed consent were obtained. Between April 2000 and August 2001, patients with PAD were randomly assigned to undergo either DSA or multi-detector row CT angiography as the initial diagnostic imaging test. Outcomes were the therapeutic confidence assessed by physicians (on a scale from 0 to 10), the need for additional imaging, the health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up, diagnostic and therapeutic costs, and the costs for a hospital stay. Costs were computed from a hospital perspective according to Dutch guidelines for cost calculations in health care. Mean outcomes were compared between groups with unpaired t testing and were adjusted for predictive baseline characteristics with multivariable regression analysis.
Among the 145 patients, 72 were randomly allocated to the DSA group and 73 to the CT angiography group. One patient in the DSA group had to be excluded. Mean age was 63 years in the DSA group and 64 years in the CT angiography group. There were 47 men in the DSA group and 58 men in the CT angiography group. Physician confidence in making a correct therapeutic choice was significantly higher at DSA (mean confidence score, 8.2) than at CT angiography (mean score, 7.2; P < .001). During 6-month follow-up, 14% less additional imaging was performed in the DSA group than in the CT angiography group (P = .3). No significant quality-of-life differences were found between groups. The diagnostic cost associated with DSA (564 +/- 210 euro [standard deviation]) was significantly higher than that associated with CT angiography (363 +/- 273 euro), a difference of -201 euro (95% confidence interval: -281 euro, -120 euro; P < .001). Therapeutic and hospitalization costs were similar for both strategies.
These results suggest that use of noninvasive multi-detector row CT angiography instead of DSA as the initial diagnostic imaging test for PAD provides sufficient information for therapeutic decision making and reduces imaging costs.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Neue Entwicklungen in der Technik und der Nachverarbeitung haben den Stellenwert der nichtinvasiven CT-Angiographie (CTA) und MR-Angiographie (MRA) in der Diagnostik der peripheren arteriellen Verschlusskrankheit (PAVK) in den letzten Jahren weiter verbessert. Im klinischen Alltag wird die diagnostische Angiographie (DSA) immer mehr durch diese Verfahren ersetzt. Der Radiologe sollte mit den Indikationen, unterschiedlichen Techniken, der Nachverarbeitung und den Mglichkeiten und Anforderungen einer effektiven Visualisierung vertraut sein. Unter Bercksichtigung der gegenwrtigen Literatur werden methodologische Aspekte und die Rolle der CTA und MRA in der Diagnostik der PAVK dargestellt.New developments in technique and postprocessing have led to further improvement in diagnosing and evaluating peripheral arterial disease (PAD) by noninvasive computed tomographic angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). Under clinical conditions diagnostic conventional angiography (DSA) will be increasingly replaced by CTA and MRA. The radiologist has to become familiar with the field of indications, the different techniques, postprocessing tools, and effective visualization. In consideration of the current literature some methodological aspects and the role of CTA and MRA in PAD will be discussed.Der Radiologe 10/2006; 46(11):941-947. DOI:10.1007/s00117-006-1415-2 · 0.41 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To evaluate retrospectively the effect of vessel wall calcifications on the clinical utility of multi-detector row computed tomographic (CT) angiography performed in patients with peripheral arterial disease and to identify clinical predictors for the presence of vessel wall calcifications. The study was approved by the hospital institutional review board, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. For this study the authors included patients from two randomized controlled trials that measured the costs and effects of diagnostic imaging in patients with peripheral arterial disease. All patients underwent CT angiography and were followed up for 6 months. Clinical utility was measured on the basis of therapeutic confidence (rated on a 10-point scale) in the results of initial CT angiography and the need for additional vascular imaging. Univariable and multivariable logistic and linear regression analysis and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve were used to evaluate the effect of vessel wall calcifications on the clinical utility of CT angiography and the use of patient characteristics to predict the number of calcified segments at CT angiography. A total of 145 patients were included (mean age, 64 years; 70% men). The authors found that the number of calcified segments was a significant predictor of the need for additional imaging (P = .001) and of the confidence scores (P < .001). The number of calcified segments discriminated between patients who required additional imaging after CT angiography and those who did not (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.54, 0.77). Age, diabetes mellitus, and cardiac disease were significant predictors of the number of calcified segments in both the univariable and multivariable analyses (P < .05). Vessel wall calcifications decrease the clinical utility of CT angiography in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Diabetes mellitus, cardiac disease, and elderly age (older than 84 years) are independently predictive for the presence of vessel wall calcifications.Radiology 11/2006; 241(2):603-8. DOI:10.1148/radiol.2412050781 · 6.21 Impact Factor