TY - JOUR
T1 - Detection of deep venous thrombosis
T2 - Prospective comparison of MR imaging with contrast venography
AU - Evans, A. J.
AU - Sostman, H. D.
AU - Knelson, M. H.
AU - Spritzer, C. E.
AU - Newman, G. E.
AU - Paine, S. S.
AU - Beam, C. A.
PY - 1993
Y1 - 1993
N2 - OBJECTIVE. Preliminary reports have described the use of MR imaging for the detection of deep venous thrombosis. However, no prospective study comparing MR imaging with contrast venography (the gold standard) has been reported. Accordingly, we performed a prospective, blinded study of the efficacy of MR imaging in 61 consecutive patients with clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis. In cases of disagreement, additional testing was performed to determine the diagnosis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. From June 1991 to February 1992, 61 patients with clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis were examined with venography and MR imaging. The average time between studies was 3 hr. In 21 of the 61 patients, the final diagnosis was deep venous thrombosis. RESULTS. For detection of deep venous thrombosis in the pelvis, the sensitivity of MR imaging was 100% (9/9) with a 95% confidence interval of 72-100% and the specificity was 95% (52/55) with a 95% confidence interval of 85-99%. In the thigh, the sensitivity (16/16) and specificity (43/43) were both 100% with 95% confidence intervals of 83-100% and 93-100%, respectively. In the calf, the sensitivity was 87% (13/15) with a 95% confidence interval of 60-98% and the specificity was 97% (36/37) with a 95% confidence interval of 86-100%. CONCLUSION. We found no statistically significant difference between MR imaging and contrast venography in the detection of deep venous thrombosis. This result suggests that MR imaging is at least as sensitive and specific as contrast venography in the detection of deep venous thrombosis.
AB - OBJECTIVE. Preliminary reports have described the use of MR imaging for the detection of deep venous thrombosis. However, no prospective study comparing MR imaging with contrast venography (the gold standard) has been reported. Accordingly, we performed a prospective, blinded study of the efficacy of MR imaging in 61 consecutive patients with clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis. In cases of disagreement, additional testing was performed to determine the diagnosis. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. From June 1991 to February 1992, 61 patients with clinically suspected deep venous thrombosis were examined with venography and MR imaging. The average time between studies was 3 hr. In 21 of the 61 patients, the final diagnosis was deep venous thrombosis. RESULTS. For detection of deep venous thrombosis in the pelvis, the sensitivity of MR imaging was 100% (9/9) with a 95% confidence interval of 72-100% and the specificity was 95% (52/55) with a 95% confidence interval of 85-99%. In the thigh, the sensitivity (16/16) and specificity (43/43) were both 100% with 95% confidence intervals of 83-100% and 93-100%, respectively. In the calf, the sensitivity was 87% (13/15) with a 95% confidence interval of 60-98% and the specificity was 97% (36/37) with a 95% confidence interval of 86-100%. CONCLUSION. We found no statistically significant difference between MR imaging and contrast venography in the detection of deep venous thrombosis. This result suggests that MR imaging is at least as sensitive and specific as contrast venography in the detection of deep venous thrombosis.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027281695&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027281695&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2214/ajr.161.1.8517292
DO - 10.2214/ajr.161.1.8517292
M3 - Article
C2 - 8517292
AN - SCOPUS:0027281695
SN - 0361-803X
VL - 161
SP - 131
EP - 139
JO - American Journal of Roentgenology
JF - American Journal of Roentgenology
IS - 1
ER -