AC Portal
Document Navigator

Sudden Onset of Cold, Painful Leg

Variant: 1   Sudden onset of cold, painful leg. Suspected vascular compromise. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
Arteriography lower extremity Usually Appropriate ☢☢
MRA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
CTA lower extremity with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
US duplex Doppler lower extremity May Be Appropriate O
MRA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRA lower extremity without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRA lower extremity without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
US duplex Doppler aorta abdomen Usually Not Appropriate O
US intravascular aorta and iliofemoral system Usually Not Appropriate O

Panel Members
William F. Browne, MDa; Jeffrey Sung, MDb; Bill S. Majdalany, MDc; Minhaj S. Khaja, MD, MBAd; Keith Calligaro, MDe; Benjamin N. Contrella, MDf; Maros Ferencik, MD, PhD, MCRg; Andrew J. Gunn, MDh; Baljendra S. Kapoor, MDi; Nicole A. Keefe, MDj; Nima Kokabi, MDk; Christopher M. Kramer, MDl; Richard Kwun, MDm; Fadi Shamoun, MDn; Aditya M. Sharma, MBBSo; Scott D. Steenburg, MDp; Andrew T. Trout, MDq; Kanupriya Vijay, MD, MBBSr; David Wang, s; Michael L. Steigner, MDt.
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Special Imaging Considerations
Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

  • There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

OR

  • There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Sudden onset of cold, painful leg. Suspected vascular compromise. Initial imaging.
Variant 1: Sudden onset of cold, painful leg. Suspected vascular compromise. Initial imaging.
A. Arteriography lower extremity
Variant 1: Sudden onset of cold, painful leg. Suspected vascular compromise. Initial imaging.
B. CTA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff with IV contrast
Variant 1: Sudden onset of cold, painful leg. Suspected vascular compromise. Initial imaging.
C. CTA lower extremity with IV contrast
Variant 1: Sudden onset of cold, painful leg. Suspected vascular compromise. Initial imaging.
D. MRA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff with IV contrast
Variant 1: Sudden onset of cold, painful leg. Suspected vascular compromise. Initial imaging.
E. MRA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff without IV contrast
Variant 1: Sudden onset of cold, painful leg. Suspected vascular compromise. Initial imaging.
F. MRA lower extremity without and with IV contrast
Variant 1: Sudden onset of cold, painful leg. Suspected vascular compromise. Initial imaging.
G. MRA lower extremity without IV contrast
Variant 1: Sudden onset of cold, painful leg. Suspected vascular compromise. Initial imaging.
H. US duplex Doppler aorta abdomen
Variant 1: Sudden onset of cold, painful leg. Suspected vascular compromise. Initial imaging.
I. US duplex Doppler lower extremity
Variant 1: Sudden onset of cold, painful leg. Suspected vascular compromise. Initial imaging.
J. US intravascular aorta and iliofemoral system
Summary of Highlights
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.
Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

☢

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”
References
1. Hawkins BM, Li J, Wilkins LR, et al. SCAI/ACR/APMA/SCVS/SIR/SVM/SVS/VESS position statement on competencies for endovascular specialists providing CLTI care. J Vasc Surg 2022;76:25-34.
2. Menke J, Luthje L, Kastrup A, Larsen J. Thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation. [Review] [72 refs]. Am J Cardiol. 105(4):502-10, 2010 Feb 15.
3. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Workup of Noncerebral Systemic Arterial Embolic Source. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3158182/Narrative/.
4. Gale SS, Scissons RP, Salles-Cunha SX, et al. Lower extremity arterial evaluation: are segmental arterial blood pressures worthwhile? J Vasc Surg. 1998; 27(5):831-838; discussion 838-839.
5. Weinreb JC, Rodby RA, Yee J, et al. Use of Intravenous Gadolinium-based Contrast Media in Patients with Kidney Disease: Consensus Statements from the American College of Radiology and the National Kidney Foundation. Radiology. 298(1):28-35, 2021 01.
6. Gulani V, Calamante F, Shellock FG, Kanal E, Reeder SB, International Society for Magnetic Resonance in M. Gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. Lancet Neurol 2017;16:564-70.
7. Rogers S, Carreira J, Phair A, Olech C, Ghosh J, McCollum C. Comparison Between Below Knee Contrast Enhanced Tomographic 3D Ultrasound and CT, MR or Catheter Angiography for Peripheral Artery Imaging. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 61(3):440-446, 2021 03.
8. Mougin J, Louis N, Maupas E, Goueffic Y, Fabre D, Haulon S. Fusion imaging guidance for endovascular recanalization of peripheral occlusive disease. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 75(2):610-617, 2022 02.J Vasc Surg. 75(2):610-617, 2022 02.
9. Yoshida T, Nguyen KL, Shahrouki P, Quinones-Baldrich WJ, Lawrence PF, Finn JP. Intermodality feature fusion combining unenhanced computed tomography and ferumoxytol-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for patient-specific vascular mapping in renal impairment. J Vasc Surg. 71(5):1674-1684, 2020 05.
10. American College of Radiology. ACR–NASCI–SIR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Body Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=164+&releaseId=2.
11. Gerhard-Herman MD, Gornik HL, Barrett C, et al. 2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2017;135:e686-e725.
12. Albrecht T, Foert E, Holtkamp R, et al. 16-MDCT angiography of aortoiliac and lower extremity arteries: comparison with digital subtraction angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189(3):702-711.
13. Berg F, Bangard C, Bovenschulte H, et al. Hybrid contrast-enhanced MR angiography of pelvic and lower extremity vasculature at 3.0 T: initial experience. European Journal of Radiology. 70(1):170-6, 2009 Apr.Eur J Radiol. 70(1):170-6, 2009 Apr.
14. Collins R, Burch J, Cranny G, et al. Duplex ultrasonography, magnetic resonance angiography, and computed tomography angiography for diagnosis and assessment of symptomatic, lower limb peripheral arterial disease: systematic review. BMJ. 2007; 334(7606):1257.
15. Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Kock MC, Hunink MG. Lower extremity arterial disease: multidetector CT angiography meta-analysis. Radiology. 2007;245(2):433-439.
16. Iglesias J, Pena C. Computed tomography angiography and magnetic resonance angiography imaging in critical limb ischemia: an overview. [Review]. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 17(3):147-54, 2014 Sep.
17. Kreitner KF, Kunz RP, Herber S, Martenstein S, Dorweiler B, Dueber C. MR angiography of the pedal arteries with gadobenate dimeglumine, a contrast agent with increased relaxivity, and comparison with selective intraarterial DSA. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008; 27(1):78-85.
18. Met R, Bipat S, Legemate DA, Reekers JA, Koelemay MJ. Diagnostic performance of computed tomography angiography in peripheral arterial disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2009; 301(4):415-424.
19. Gupta R, Hennebry TA. Percutaneous isolated pharmaco-mechanical thrombolysis-thrombectomy system for the management of acute arterial limb ischemia: 30-day results from a single-center experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 80(4):636-43, 2012 Oct 01.
20. Kuhn JP, Hoene A, Miertsch M, et al. Intraarterial recombinant tissue plasminogen activator thrombolysis of acute and semiacute lower limb arterial occlusion: quality assurance, complication management, and 12-month follow-up reinterventions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:1189-93.
21. Ofer A, Nitecki SS, Linn S, et al. Multidetector CT angiography of peripheral vascular disease: a prospective comparison with intraarterial digital subtraction angiography. AJR. 2003;180(3):719-724.
22. Catalano C, Fraioli F, Laghi A, et al. Infrarenal aortic and lower-extremity arterial disease: diagnostic performance of multi-detector row CT angiography. Radiology. 2004;231(2):555-563.
23. Fine JJ, Hall PA, Richardson JH, Butterfield LO. 64-slice peripheral computed tomography angiography: a clinical accuracy evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;47(7):1495-1496.
24. Addis KA, Hopper KD, Iyriboz TA, et al. CT angiography: in vitro comparison of five reconstruction methods. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177:1171-6.
25. Ouwendijk R, de Vries M, Stijnen T, et al. Multicenter randomized controlled trial of the costs and effects of noninvasive diagnostic imaging in patients with peripheral arterial disease: the DIPAD trial. AJR. 2008;190(5):1349-1357.
26. Machida H, Tanaka I, Fukui R, et al. Dual-Energy Spectral CT: Various Clinical Vascular Applications. Radiographics 2016;36:1215-32.
27. Meyer BC, Werncke T, Hopfenmuller W, Raatschen HJ, Wolf KJ, Albrecht T. Dual energy CT of peripheral arteries: effect of automatic bone and plaque removal on image quality and grading of stenoses. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 68(3):414-422.
28. Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with thoracic aortic disease: Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine. Anesth Analg 2010;111:279-315.
29. Kumamaru KK, Hoppel BE, Mather RT, Rybicki FJ. CT angiography: current technology and clinical use. Radiol Clin North Am. 2010;48(2):213-235, vii.
30. Cambria RP, Kaufman JA, L'Italien GJ, et al. Magnetic resonance angiography in the management of lower extremity arterial occlusive disease: a prospective study. J Vasc Surg. 1997;25(2):380-389.
31. Jens S, Koelemay MJ, Reekers JA, Bipat S. Diagnostic performance of computed tomography angiography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in patients with critical limb ischaemia and intermittent claudication: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2013;23:3104-14.
32. Loewe C, Schoder M, Rand T, et al. Peripheral vascular occlusive disease: evaluation with contrast-enhanced moving-bed MR angiography versus digital subtraction angiography in 106 patients. AJR. 2002;179(4):1013-1021.
33. Menke J, Larsen J. Meta-analysis: Accuracy of contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for assessing steno-occlusions in peripheral arterial disease. Ann Intern Med. 2010; 153(5):325-334.
34. Zhu YQ, Zhao JG, Wang J, et al. Patency of runoff detected by MR angiography at 3.0 T with cuff-compression: a predictor of successful endovascular recanalization below the knee. Eur Radiol. 24(11):2857-65, 2014 Nov.
35. Hodnett PA, Ward EV, Davarpanah AH, et al. Peripheral arterial disease in a symptomatic diabetic population: prospective comparison of rapid unenhanced MR angiography (MRA) with contrast-enhanced MRA. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;197:1466-73.
36. Gitsioudis G, Fortner P, Stuber M, et al. Off-resonance magnetic resonance angiography improves visualization of in-stent lumen in peripheral nitinol stents compared to conventional T1-weighted acquisitions: an in vitro comparison study. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging 2016;32:1645-55.
37. Hood MN, Ho VB, Foo TK, Marcos HB, Hess SL, Choyke PL. High-resolution gadolinium-enhanced 3D MRA of the infrapopliteal arteries. Lessons for improving bolus-chase peripheral MRA. Magn Reson Imaging 2002;20:543-9.
38. Low G, Mizzi A, Ong K, Lau PF, McKinstery J. Technical inadequacies of peripheral contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography: incidence, causes and management strategies. Clin Radiol 2006;61:937-45.
39. Menke J. Improving the image quality of contrast-enhanced MR angiography by automated image registration: a prospective study in peripheral arterial disease of the lower extremities. Eur J Radiol. 2010; 75(3):e1-8.
40. Edelman RR, Koktzoglou I. Noncontrast MR angiography: An update. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49:355-73.
41. Hanrahan CJ, Lindley MD, Mueller M, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Noncontrast MR Angiography Protocols at 3T for the Detection and Characterization of Lower Extremity Peripheral Arterial Disease. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 29(11):1585-1594.e2, 2018 11.
42. Hodnett PA, Koktzoglou I, Davarpanah AH, et al. Evaluation of Peripheral Arterial Disease with Nonenhanced Quiescent-Interval Single-Shot MR Angiography. Radiology. 2011;260(1):282-293.
43. Krnic A, Vucic N, Sucic Z. Duplex scanning compared with intra-arterial angiography in diagnosing peripheral arterial disease: three analytical approaches. Vasa. 2006; 35(2):86-91.
44. Leiner T, Kessels AG, Nelemans PJ, et al. Peripheral arterial disease: comparison of color duplex US and contrast-enhanced MR angiography for diagnosis. Radiology. 2005;235(2):699-708.
45. Kurata N, Iida O, Takahara M, et al. Predictive Factors for Restenosis Following Stent-Supported Endovascular Therapy with Intravascular Ultrasound Evaluation for Femoropopliteal Chronic Total Occlusion. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 32(5):712-720.e1, 2021 05.
46. Makris GC, Chrysafi P, Little M, et al. The role of intravascular ultrasound in lower limb revascularization in patients with peripheral arterial disease. [Review]. Int Angiol. 36(6):505-516, 2017 Dec.
47. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked.  Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.