Advances in diagnostic imaging for peripheral arterial disease

References

• Elgzyri T, Ekberg G, Peterson K, Lundell A, Apelqvist J. Can duplex arterial ultrasonography reduce unnecessary angiography? J. Wound Care17(11), 497–500 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hingorani AP, Ascher E, Marks N et al. Limitations of and lessons learned from clinical experience of 1,020 duplex arteriography. Vascular16(3), 147–153 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Schwarcz TH, Gatz VL, Little S, Geddings CF. Arterial duplex ultrasound is the most cost-effective, noninvasive diagnostic imaging modality before treatment of lower-extremity arterial occlusive disease. J. Vasc. Ultrasound33(2), 75–79 (2009).
   Google Scholar
• Leiner T, Kessels AG, Nelemans PJ et al. Peripheral arterial disease: comparison of color duplex US and contrast-enhanced MR angiography for diagnosis. Radiology235(2), 699–708 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Favaretto E, Pili C, Amato A et al. Analysis of agreement between duplex ultrasound scanning and arteriography in patients with lower limb artery disease. J. Cardiovasc. Med. (Hagerstown)8(5), 337–341 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langer S, Kramer N, Mommertz G et al. Unmasking pedal arteries in patients with critical ischemia using time-resolved contrast-enhanced 3D MRA. J. Vasc. Surg.49(5), 1196–1202 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Coffi SB, Ubbink DT, Zwiers I, van Gurp JA, Hanson D, Legemate DA. Contrast-enhanced duplex scanning of crural arteries by means of continuous infusion of Levovist. J. Vasc. Surg.39(3), 517–522 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janvier MA, Destrempes F, Soulez G, Cloutier G. Validation of a new 3D-US imaging robotic system to detect and quantify lower limb arterial stenoses. Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc.2007, 339–342 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Hingorani A, Ascher E, Marks N et al. Comparison of computed tomography angiography to contrast arteriography for patients undergoing evaluation for lower extremity revascularization. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg.41(2), 115–119 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Willmann JK, Baumert B, Schertler T et al. Aortoiliac and lower extremity arteries assessed with 16-detector row CT angiography: prospective comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Radiology236(3), 1083–1093 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shareghi S, Gopal A, Gul K et al. Diagnostic accuracy of 64 multidetector computed tomographic angiography in peripheral vascular disease. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv.75(1), 23–31 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cernic S, Pozzi Mucelli F, Pellegrin A, Pizzolato R, Cova MA. Comparison between 64-row CT angiography and digital subtraction angiography in the study of lower extremities: personal experience. Radiol. Med.114(7), 1115–1129 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brockmann C, Jochum S, Sadick M et al. Dual-energy CT angiography in peripheral arterial occlusive disease. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol.32(4), 630–637 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bui BT, Miller S, Mildenberger P, Sam A 2nd, Sheng R. Comparison of contrast-enhanced MR angiography to intraarterial digital subtraction angiography for evaluation of peripheral arterial occlusive disease: results of a Phase III multicenter trial. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging31(6), 1402–1410 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Leiner T. Magnetic resonance angiography of abdominal and lower extremity vasculature. Top. Magn. Reson. Imaging16(1), 21–66 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Weinreb JC, Abu-Alfa AK. Gadolinium-based contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: why did it happen and what have we learned? J. Magn. Reson. Imaging30(6), 1236–1239 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wertman R, Altun E, Martin DR et al. Risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis: evaluation of gadolinium chelate contrast agents at four American universities. Radiology248(3), 799–806 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dinter DJ, Neff KW, Visciani G et al. Peripheral bolus-chase MR angiography: analysis of risk factors for nondiagnostic image quality of the calf vessels – a combined retrospective and prospective study. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol.193(1), 234–240 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lim RP, Jacob JS, Hecht EM et al. Time-resolved lower extremity MRA with temporal interpolation and stochastic spiral trajectories: preliminary clinical experience. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging31(3), 663–672 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nielsen YW, Eiberg JP, Logager VB, Just S, Schroeder TV, Thomsen HS. Whole-body magnetic resonance angiography with additional steady-state acquisition of the infragenicular arteries in patients with peripheral arterial disease. Cardiovasc. Intervent. Radiol.33(3), 484–491 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Berg F, Bangard C, Bovenschulte H et al. Feasibility of peripheral contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 Tesla with a hybrid technique: comparison with digital subtraction angiography. Invest. Radiol.43(9), 642–649 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kramer H, Michaely HJ, Matschl V, Schmitt P, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. High-resolution magnetic resonance angiography of the lower extremities with a dedicated 36-element matrix coil at 3 Tesla. Invest. Radiol.42(6), 477–483 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gerretsen SC, le Maire TF, Miller S et al. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR angiography of peripheral arteries. Radiology255(3), 988–1000 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eslami MH, Csikesz N, Schanzer A, Messina LM. Peripheral arterial interventions: trends in market share and outcomes by specialty, 1998–2005. J. Vasc. Surg.50(5), 1071–1078 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bechara CF, Annambhotla S, Lin PH. Access site management with vascular closure devices for percutaneous transarterial procedures. J. Vasc. Surg. DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.04.079 (2010) (Epub ahead of print).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Engelbert TL, Scholten A, Thompson K, Spivack A, Kansal N. Early ambulation after percutaneous femoral access with use of closure devices and hemostatic agents. Ann. Vasc. Surg.24(4), 518–523 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kashyap VS, Pavkov ML, Bishop PD et al. Angiography underestimates peripheral atherosclerosis: lumenography revisited. J. Endovasc. Ther.15(1), 117–125 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Madhusudhan KS, Sharma S, Srivastava DN et al. Comparison of intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography using carbon dioxide by ‘home made’ delivery system and conventional iodinated contrast media in the evaluation of peripheral arterial occlusive disease of the lower limbs. J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol.53(1), 40–49 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arthurs ZM, Bishop PD, Feiten LE, Eagleton MJ, Clair DG, Kashyap VS. Evaluation of peripheral atherosclerosis: a comparative analysis of angiography and intravascular ultrasound imaging. J. Vasc. Surg.51(4), 933–938 (2010).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pearce BJ, Jordan WD Jr. Using IVUS during EVAR and TEVAR: improving patient outcomes. Semin. Vasc. Surg.22(3), 172–180 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Diethrich EB, Irshad K, Reid DB. Virtual histology and color flow intravascular ultrasound in peripheral interventions. Semin. Vasc. Surg.19(3), 155–162 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kohno H, Sueda S. Rupture of a peripheral popliteal artery plaque documented by intravascular ultrasound: a case report. Catheter. Cardiovasc. Interv.74(7), 1102–1106 (2009).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• El-Haddad G, Zhuang H, Gupta N, Alavi A. Evolving role of positron emission tomography in the management of patients with inflammatory and other benign disorders. Semin. Nucl. Med.34(4), 313–329 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rudd JH, Myers KS, Bansilal S et al. Atherosclerosis inflammation imaging with 18F-FDG PET: carotid, iliac, and femoral uptake reproducibility, quantification methods, and recommendations. J. Nucl. Med.49(6), 871–878 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinusas AJ. Imaging of angiogenesis. J. Nucl. Cardiol.11(5), 617–633 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Buck AK, Herrmann K, Stargardt T, Dechow T, Krause BJ, Schreyogg J. Economic evaluation of PET and PET/CT in oncology: evidence and methodologic approaches. J. Nucl. Med.51(3), 401–412 (2010).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenman RL, Panasyuk S, Wang X et al. Early changes in the skin microcirculation and muscle metabolism of the diabetic foot. Lancet366(9498), 1711–1717 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nouvong A, Hoogwerf B, Mohler E, Davis B, Tajaddini A, Medenilla E. Evaluation of diabetic foot ulcer healing with hyperspectral imaging of oxyhemoglobin and deoxyhemoglobin. Diabetes Care32(11), 2056–2061 (2009).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cancio LC, Batchinsky AI, Mansfield JR et al. Hyperspectral imaging: a new approach to the diagnosis of hemorrhagic shock. J. Trauma60(5), 1087–1095 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khaodhiar L, Dinh T, Schomacker KT et al. The use of medical hyperspectral technology to evaluate microcirculatory changes in diabetic foot ulcers and to predict clinical outcomes. Diabetes Care30(4), 903–910 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaffer FA, Libby P, Weissleder R. Molecular and cellular imaging of atherosclerosis: emerging applications. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol.47(7), 1328–1338 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborn EA, Jaffer FA. Advances in molecular imaging of atherosclerotic vascular disease. Curr. Opin. Cardiol.23(6), 620–628 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nahrendorf M, Zhang H, Hembrador S et al. Nanoparticle PET-CT imaging of macrophages in inflammatory atherosclerosis. Circulation117(3), 379–387 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaffer FA, Kim DE, Quinti L et al. Optical visualization of cathepsin K activity in atherosclerosis with a novel, protease-activatable fluorescence sensor. Circulation115(17), 2292–2298 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar