AC Portal
Document Navigator

Lower Extremity Arterial Revascularization-Post-Therapy Imaging

Variant: 1   Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass. Asymptomatic. Surveillance.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler lower extremity Usually Appropriate O
Arteriography lower extremity Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢
MRA lower extremity without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRA lower extremity without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
CTA lower extremity with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢

Variant: 2   Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass. Claudication or CLI. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler lower extremity Usually Appropriate O
MRA lower extremity without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
CTA lower extremity with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
Arteriography lower extremity May Be Appropriate ☢☢
MRA lower extremity without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O

Variant: 3   Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass, presenting with cold, painful extremity and diminished pulses (acute limb ischemia). Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler lower extremity Usually Appropriate O
Arteriography lower extremity Usually Appropriate ☢☢
CTA lower extremity with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢
MRA lower extremity without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) O
MRA lower extremity without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O

Panel Members
Bill S. Majdalany, MDa; Kyle Cooper, MDb; Sanjeeva P. Kalva, c; Ankur Chandra, MDd; Jeremy D. Collins, MDe; Christopher J. Francois, MDf; Suvranu Ganguli, MDg; Heather L. Gornik, MDh; A. Tuba Karagulle Kendi, MDi; Minhaj S. Khaja, MD, MBAj; Jeet Minocha, MDk; Patrick T. Norton, MDl; Piotr Obara, MDm; Stephen P. Reis, MDn; Patrick D. Sutphin, MD, PhDo; Frank J. Rybicki, MD, PhDp.
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Overview of Imaging Modalities
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass. Asymptomatic. Surveillance.
Variant 1: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass. Asymptomatic. Surveillance.
A. Arteriography 
Variant 1: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass. Asymptomatic. Surveillance.
B. CTA 
Variant 1: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass. Asymptomatic. Surveillance.
C. MRA 
Variant 1: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass. Asymptomatic. Surveillance.
D. US 
Variant 2: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass. Claudication or CLI. Initial imaging.
Variant 2: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass. Claudication or CLI. Initial imaging.
A. Arteriography 
Variant 2: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass. Claudication or CLI. Initial imaging.
B. CTA 
Variant 2: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass. Claudication or CLI. Initial imaging.
C. MRA 
Variant 2: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass. Claudication or CLI. Initial imaging.
D. US 
Variant 3: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass, presenting with cold, painful extremity and diminished pulses (acute limb ischemia). Initial imaging.
Variant 3: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass, presenting with cold, painful extremity and diminished pulses (acute limb ischemia). Initial imaging.
A. Arteriography 
Variant 3: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass, presenting with cold, painful extremity and diminished pulses (acute limb ischemia). Initial imaging.
B. CTA 
Variant 3: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass, presenting with cold, painful extremity and diminished pulses (acute limb ischemia). Initial imaging.
C. MRA 
Variant 3: Previous infrainguinal endovascular therapy or bypass, presenting with cold, painful extremity and diminished pulses (acute limb ischemia). Initial imaging.
D. US 
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. Natsuaki C, Inoguchi T, Maeda Y, et al. Association of borderline ankle-brachial index with mortality and the incidence of peripheral artery disease in diabetic patients. Atherosclerosis. 2014;234(2):360-365.
2. Goodney PP, Beck AW, Nagle J, Welch HG, Zwolak RM. National trends in lower extremity bypass surgery, endovascular interventions, and major amputations. J Vasc Surg. 2009; 50(1):54-60.
3. Alahdab F, Wang AT, Elraiyah TA, et al. A systematic review for the screening for peripheral arterial disease in asymptomatic patients. [Review]. J Vasc Surg. 61(3 Suppl):42S-53S, 2015 Mar.
4. Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR, et al. ACC/AHA 2005 Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease): endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation. [Review] [1308 refs]. Circulation. 113(11):e463-654, 2006 Mar 21.Circulation. 113(11):e463-654, 2006 Mar 21.
5. Adam DJ, Beard JD, Cleveland T, et al. Bypass versus angioplasty in severe ischaemia of the leg (BASIL): multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;366(9501):1925-1934.
6. Kim ES, Wattanakit K, Gornik HL. Using the ankle-brachial index to diagnose peripheral artery disease and assess cardiovascular risk. Cleve Clin J Med. 2012;79(9):651-661.
7. Hyun S, Forbang NI, Allison MA, Denenberg JO, Criqui MH, Ix JH. Ankle-brachial index, toe-brachial index, and cardiovascular mortality in persons with and without diabetes mellitus. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(2):390-395.
8. Chuter VH, Casey SL. Effect of premeasurement rest time on systolic ankle pressure. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013;2(4):e000203.
9. Cao P, Eckstein HH, De Rango P, et al. Chapter II: Diagnostic methods. [Review]. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 42 Suppl 2:S13-32, 2011 Dec.
10. Hoyer C, Sandermann J, Petersen LJ. The toe-brachial index in the diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58(1):231-238.
11. McCann TE, Scoutt LM, Gunabushanam G. A practical approach to interpreting lower extremity noninvasive physiologic studies. Radiol Clin North Am. 2014;52(6):1343-1357.
12. Ro du H, Moon HJ, Kim JH, Lee KM, Kim SJ, Lee DY. Photoplethysmography and continuous-wave Doppler ultrasound as a complementary test to ankle-brachial index in detection of stenotic peripheral arterial disease. Angiology. 2013;64(4):314-320.
13. Andrews KL, Dib MY, Shives TC, Hoskin TL, Liedl DA, Boon AJ. Noninvasive arterial studies including transcutaneous oxygen pressure measurements with the limbs elevated or dependent to predict healing after partial foot amputation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;92(5):385-392.
14. Pardo M, Alcaraz M, Bernal FL, et al. A solution to ankle-brachial index limitations in peripheral transluminal angioplasty. Radiol Med. 2013;118(8):1373-1378.
15. van Zitteren M, Vriens PW, Heyligers JM, et al. Self-reported symptoms on questionnaires and anatomic lesions on duplex ultrasound examinations in patients with peripheral arterial disease. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(4):1025-1034 e1022.
16. Wong TH, Tay KH, Sebastian MG, Tan SG. Duplex ultrasonography arteriography as first-line investigation for peripheral vascular disease. Singapore Med J. 2013;54(5):271-274.
17. Marti X, Romera A, Vila R, Cairols MA. Role of ultrasound arterial mapping in planning therapeutic options for critical ischemia of lower limbs in diabetic patients. Ann Vasc Surg. 26(8):1071-6, 2012 Nov.
18. Sultan S, Tawfick W, Hynes N. Ten-year technical and clinical outcomes in TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus II infrainguinal C/D lesions using duplex ultrasound arterial mapping as the sole imaging modality for critical lower limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 57(4):1038-45, 2013 Apr.
19. Mustapha JA, Saab F, Diaz-Sandoval L, et al. Comparison between angiographic and arterial duplex ultrasound assessment of tibial arteries in patients with peripheral arterial disease: on behalf of the Joint Endovascular and Non-Invasive Assessment of LImb Perfusion (JENALI) Group. J Invasive Cardiol. 2013;25(11):606-611.
20. Takimura H, Hirano K, Muramatsu T, et al. Vascular elastography: a novel method to characterize occluded lower limb arteries prior to endovascular therapy. J Endovasc Ther. 2014;21(5):654-661.
21. Arvela E, Dick F. Surveillance after distal revascularization for critical limb ischaemia. Scand J Surg. 2012;101(2):119-124.
22. Troutman DA, Madden NJ, Dougherty MJ, Calligaro KD. Duplex ultrasound diagnosis of failing stent grafts placed for occlusive disease. J Vasc Surg. 60(6):1580-4, 2014 Dec.
23. Shrikhande GV, Graham AR, Aparajita R, et al. Determining criteria for predicting stenosis with ultrasound duplex after endovascular intervention in infrainguinal lesions. Ann Vasc Surg. 2011;25(4):454-460.
24. Humphries MD, Pevec WC, Laird JR, Yeo KK, Hedayati N, Dawson DL. Early duplex scanning after infrainguinal endovascular therapy. J Vasc Surg. 53(2):353-8, 2011 Feb.
25. Wilson YG, Davies AH, Currie IC, et al. The value of pre-discharge Duplex scanning in infrainguinal graft surveillance. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1995;10(2):237-242.
26. Jones DW, Graham A, Connolly PH, Schneider DB, Meltzer AJ. Restenosis and symptom recurrence after endovascular therapy for claudication: does duplex ultrasound correlate with recurrent claudication?. Vascular. 23(1):47-54, 2015 Feb.
27. Fontcuberta J, Flores A, Orgaz A, et al. Reliability of preoperative duplex scanning in designing a therapeutic strategy for chronic lower limb ischemia. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009; 23(5):577-582.
28. Gargiulo M, Maioli F, Ceccacci T, et al. What's next after optimal infrapopliteal angioplasty? Clinical and ultrasonographic results of a prospective single-center study. J Endovasc Ther. 2008; 15(3):363-369.
29. Owen AR, Roditi GH. Peripheral arterial disease: the evolving role of non-invasive imaging. Postgrad Med J. 2011;87(1025):189-198.
30. 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.
31. Fotiadis N, Kyriakides C, Bent C, Vorvolakos T, Matson M. 64-section CT angiography in patients with critical limb ischaemia and severe claudication: comparison with digital subtractive angiography. Clin Radiol. 66(10):945-52, 2011 Oct.
32. 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.
33. Meyer BC, Klein S, Krix M, Aschoff AJ, Wacker FK, Albrecht T. Comparison of a standard and a high-concentration contrast medium protocol for MDCT angiography of the lower limb arteries. Rofo. 2012;184(6):527-534.
34. Ouwendijk R, Kock MC, van Dijk LC, van Sambeek MR, Stijnen T, Hunink MG. Vessel wall calcifications at multi-detector row CT angiography in patients with peripheral arterial disease: effect on clinical utility and clinical predictors. Radiology. 2006;241(2):603-608.
35. Huang SY, Nelson RC, Miller MJ, et al. Assessment of vascular contrast and depiction of stenoses in abdominopelvic and lower extremity vasculature: comparison of dual-energy MDCT with digital subtraction angiography. Academic Radiology. 19(9):1149-57, 2012 Sep.Acad Radiol. 19(9):1149-57, 2012 Sep.
36. Lee IJ, Chung JW, Hong H, et al. Subtraction CT angiography of the lower extremities: single volume subtraction versus multi-segmented volume subtraction. Acad Radiol. 2011;18(7):902-909.
37. Sommer WH, Bamberg F, Johnson TR, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of dynamic computed tomographic angiographic of the lower leg in patients with critical limb ischemia. Invest Radiol. 2012;47(6):325-331.
38. Swanberg J, Nyman R, Magnusson A, Wanhainen A. Selective intra-arterial dual-energy CT angiography (s-CTA) in lower extremity arterial occlusive disease. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 48(3):325-9, 2014 Sep.
39. Penzkofer T, Slebocki K, Grommes J, et al. High-pitch carbon dioxide contrasted CT angiography: pilot study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37(2):362-370.
40. Healy DA, Boyle EM, Clarke Moloney M, et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in diabetic patients with infra-genicular peripheral arterial disease: systematic review. Int J Surg. 2013;11(3):228-232.
41. Li J, Zhao JG, Li MH. Lower limb vascular disease in diabetic patients: a study with calf compression contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 Tesla. Acad Radiol. 2011;18(6):755-763.
42. Hadizadeh DR, Marx C, Gieseke J, Schild HH, Willinek WA. High temporal and high spatial resolution MR angiography (4D-MRA). [Review]. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed. 186(9):847-59, 2014 Sep.
43. Kinner S, Quick HH, Maderwald S, Hunold P, Barkhausen J, Vogt FM. Triple-TWIST MRA: high spatial and temporal resolution MR angiography of the entire peripheral vascular system using a time-resolved 4D MRA technique. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(1):298-306.
44. Knobloch G, Gielen M, Lauff MT, et al. ECG-gated quiescent-interval single-shot MR angiography of the lower extremities: initial experience at 3 T. Clin Radiol. 2014;69(5):485-491.
45. Ko SF, Sheu JJ, Lee CC, et al. TRICKS magnetic resonance angiography at 3-tesla for assessing whole lower extremity vascular tree in patients with high-grade critical limb ischemia: DSA and TASC II guidelines correlations. ScientificWorldJournal. 2012;2012:192150.
46. Bertschinger K, Cassina PC, Debatin JF, Ruehm SG. Surveillance of peripheral arterial bypass grafts with three-dimensional MR angiography: comparison with digital subtraction angiography. AJR. 2001;176(1):215-220.
47. Hakyemez B, Koroglu M, Yildiz H, Erdogan C, Atasoy S, Yurdaeken K. Table-moving contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in the evaluation of lower extremity peripheral arterial bypass grafts. JBR-BTR. 2006;89(2):67-71.
48. Link J, Steffens JC, Brossmann J, Graessner J, Hackethal S, Heller M. Iliofemoral arterial occlusive disease: contrast-enhanced MR angiography for preinterventional evaluation and follow-up after stent placement. Radiology. 1999; 212(2):371-377.
49. Suttmeyer B, Teichgraber U, Thomas A, et al. Non-invasive ECG-triggered 2D TOF MR angiography of the pelvic and leg arteries in an open 1.0-tesla high-field MRI system in comparison to conventional DSA. Biomed Tech (Berl). 2014;59(1):29-37.
50. Ersoy H, Rybicki FJ. Biochemical safety profiles of gadolinium-based extracellular contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26(5):1190-1197.
51. Liu X, Zhang N, Fan Z, et al. Detection of infragenual arterial disease using non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography in patients with diabetes. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;40(6):1422-1429.
52. Thierfelder KM, Meimarakis G, Nikolaou K, et al. Non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 3 Tesla in patients with advanced peripheral arterial occlusive disease. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e91078.
53. Diop AD, Braidy C, Habouchi A, et al. Unenhanced 3D turbo spin-echo MR angiography of lower limbs in peripheral arterial disease: a comparative study with gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(5):1145-1150.
54. Atanasova IP, Kim D, Storey P, Rosenkrantz AB, Lim RP, Lee VS. Sagittal fresh blood imaging with interleaved acquisition of systolic and diastolic data for improved robustness to motion. Magn Reson Med. 2013;69(2):321-328.
55. Hansmann J, Morelli JN, Michaely HJ, et al. Nonenhanced ECG-gated quiescent-interval single shot MRA: image quality and stenosis assessment at 3 tesla compared with contrast-enhanced MRA and digital subtraction angiography. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;39(6):1486-1493.
56. Kassamali RH, Hoey ET, Ganeshan A, Littlehales T. A comparative analysis of noncontrast fl ow-spoiled versus contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography for evaluation of peripheral arterial disease. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013;19(2):119-125.
57. 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.
58. Grozinger G, Pohmann R, Schick F, et al. Perfusion measurements of the calf in patients with peripheral arterial occlusive disease before and after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty using MR arterial spin labeling. J Magn Reson Imaging. 40(4):980-7, 2014 Oct.
59. Pollak AW, Meyer CH, Epstein FH, et al. Arterial spin labeling MR imaging reproducibly measures peak-exercise calf muscle perfusion: a study in patients with peripheral arterial disease and healthy volunteers. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012;5(12):1224-1230.
60. Versluis B, Nelemans PJ, Brans R, et al. Functional MRI in peripheral arterial disease: arterial peak flow versus ankle-brachial index. PLoS ONE. 9(2):e88471, 2014.
61. Versluis B, Nelemans PJ, Wildberger JE, Schurink GW, Leiner T, Backes WH. Magnetic resonance imaging-derived arterial peak flow in peripheral arterial disease: towards a standardized measurement. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;48(2):185-192.
62. Langham MC, Li C, Englund EK, et al. Vessel-wall imaging and quantification of flow-mediated dilation using water-selective 3D SSFP-echo. Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. 15:100, 2013 Oct 30.J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 15:100, 2013 Oct 30.
63. Koziel K, Attenberger UI, Lederle K, Haneder S, Schoenberg SO, Michaely HJ. Peripheral MRA with continuous table movement: imaging speed and robustness compared to a conventional stepping table technique. Eur J Radiol. 2011;80(2):537-542.
64. Egglin TK, O'Moore PV, Feinstein AR, Waltman AC. Complications of peripheral arteriography: a new system to identify patients at increased risk. J Vasc Surg. 1995;22(6):787-794.
65. Lin JS, Olson CM, Johnson ES, Whitlock EP. The ankle-brachial index for peripheral artery disease screening and cardiovascular disease prediction among asymptomatic adults: a systematic evidence review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159(5):333-341.
66. Hartmann A, Gehring A, Vallbracht C, et al. Noninvasive methods in the early detection of restenosis after percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in peripheral arteries. Cardiology. 1994; 84(1):25-32.
67. Eslahpazir BA, Allemang MT, Lakin RO, et al. Pulse volume recording does not enhance segmental pressure readings for peripheral arterial disease stratification. Ann Vasc Surg. 2014;28(1):18-27.
68. Bandyk DF, Cato RF, Towne JB. A low flow velocity predicts failure of femoropopliteal and femorotibial bypass grafts. Surgery. 1985;98(4):799-809.
69. Scali ST, Beck AW, Nolan BW, et al. Completion duplex ultrasound predicts early graft thrombosis after crural bypass in patients with critical limb ischemia. J Vasc Surg. 54(4):1006-10, 2011 Oct.
70. Carter A, Murphy MO, Halka AT, et al. The natural history of stenoses within lower limb arterial bypass grafts using a graft surveillance program. Ann Vasc Surg. 2007;21(6):695-703.
71. Calligaro KD, Doerr K, McAffee-Bennett S, Krug R, Raviola CA, Dougherty MJ. Should duplex ultrasonography be performed for surveillance of femoropopliteal and femorotibial arterial prosthetic bypasses? Ann Vasc Surg. 2001;15(5):520-524.
72. Weitzel WF, Kim K, Henke PK, Rubin JM. High-resolution ultrasound speckle tracking may detect vascular mechanical wall changes in peripheral artery bypass vein grafts. Ann Vasc Surg. 2009;23(2):201-206.
73. Adam DJ, Gillies TE, Kelman J, Allan PL, Chalmers RT. Vascular surgical society of great britain and ireland: duplex surveillance does not enhance infrainguinal prosthetic bypass graft patency. Br J Surg. 1999;86(5):705.
74. Davies AH, Hawdon AJ, Sydes MR, Thompson SG. Is duplex surveillance of value after leg vein bypass grafting? Principal results of the Vein Graft Surveillance Randomised Trial (VGST). Circulation. 2005;112(13):1985-1991.
75. Hobbs SD, Pinkney T, Sykes TC, Fox AD, Houghton AD. Patency of infra-inguinal vein grafts--effect of intraoperative Doppler assessment and a graft surveillance program. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49(6):1452-1458.
76. Ferris BL, Mills JL, Hughes JD, Durrani T, Knox R. Is early postoperative duplex scan surveillance of leg bypass grafts clinically important?. J Vasc Surg. 2003 Mar;37(3):495-500.
77. Bosma J, Montauban van Swijndregt AD, Vahl AC, Wisselink W. The utility of contrast enhanced MR angiography as a first stage diagnostic modality for treatment planning in lower extremity arterial occlusive disease. Acta Chir Belg. 111(2):73-7, 2011 Mar-Apr.
78. Jeon CH, Han SH, Chung NS, Hyun HS. The validity of ankle-brachial index for the differential diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease and lumbar spinal stenosis in patients with atypical claudication. Eur Spine J. 2012;21(6):1165-1170.
79. Hodgkiss-Harlow KD, Bandyk DF. Interpretation of arterial duplex testing of lower-extremity arteries and interventions. Semin Vasc Surg. 2013;26(2-3):95-104.
80. 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.
81. Rutherford RB. Acute limb ischemia. In: Cronenwett JL, Rutherford RB, eds. Decision Making in Vascular Surgery. Philadelphia, PA: WB Saunders; 2001:168-171.
82. Rolston DM, Saul T, Wong T, Lewiss RE. Bedside ultrasound diagnosis of acute embolic femoral artery occlusion. J Emerg Med. 2013;45(6):897-900.
83. Normahani P, Standfield NJ, Jaffer U. Sources of Delay in the Acute Limb Ischemia Patient Pathway. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017;38:279-285
84. Rutherford RB. Clinical staging of acute limb ischemia as the basis for choice of revascularization method: when and how to intervene. Semin Vasc Surg. 2009;22(1):5-9.
85. Creager MA, Kaufman JA, Conte MS. Clinical practice. Acute limb ischemia. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(23):2198-2206.
86. Walker TG. Acute limb ischemia. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2009;12(2):117-129
87. 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.
88. Shue B, Damle RN, Flahive J, et al. The increased use of computed tomography angiography and magnetic resonance angiography as the sole imaging modalities prior to infrainguinal bypass has had no effect on outcomes. Ann Vasc Surg. 2015;29(6):1245-1254.
89. 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.