A prospective feasibility study of duplex ultrasound arterial mapping, digital-subtraction angiography, and magnetic resonance angiography in management of critical lower limb ischemia by endovascular revascularization

Abstract

Duplex ultrasound arterial mapping (DUAM) allows precise evaluation of peripheral vascular disease (PVD). However, magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) and digital-subtraction angiography (DSA) are the diagnostic tools used most frequently prior to intervention. Our aim was to compare clinical pragmatism, hemodynamic outcomes, and cost-effectiveness when using DUAM alone compared to DSA or MRA as preoperative assessment tools for endovascular revascularization (EvR) in critical lower limb ischemia (CLI). From 2002 through 2005, 465 patients were referred with PVD. Of these, 199 had CLI and 137 required EvR. Preoperative diagnostic evaluation included DUAM (n = 41), DSA (n = 50), or MRA (n = 46). EvR was aortoiliac in 27% of cases and infrainguinal in 73%. Patients were assessed at day 1, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months. Composite end points were relief of rest pain, ulcer/gangrene healing, and increase in perfusion pressure, as measured by ankle-brachial index (ABI) and digital pressures. Patency by DUAM, limb salvage, morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and cost-effectiveness were compared between groups using nonparametric t-test, analysis of variance, and Kaplan-Meier analysis. The three groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, comorbidity, and Society for Vascular Surgery/International Society of Cardiovascular Surgery clinical classification. Six-month mean improvement in ABI in the DUAM group was comparable to that in the DSA group (P = 0.25) and significantly better than that in the MRA group (P < 0.05). Six-month patency rates for the DUAM group were comparable to those in the DSA group (P = 0.68, relative risk [RR] = 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.18-2.99) and superior to that in the MRA group (P = 0.022, RR = 0.255, 95% CI 0.09-0.71). Length of hospital stay was lower in the DUAM group compared with the DSA group (P < 0.0001) and the MRA group (P = 0.0003). The cost of DUAM is lower than that of both DSA and MRA. DUAM accurately identified the total number of target lesions for revascularization; however, MRA overestimated it. Our results indicate that DUAM is outstanding when compared with other available modalities as a preoperative imaging tool in a successful EvR program. DUAM is a minimally invasive preoperative evaluation for EvR and offers precise consecutive data with patency and limb salvage rates comparable to EvR based on DSA and superior to MRA. We believe that our feasibility study has established DUAM as an economically proficient primary modality for investigating patients with CLI that significantly shortens length of hospital stay.