Nonatherosclerotic Peripheral Arterial Disease

Variant: 1 Suspected popliteal entrapment syndrome. 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
US intravascular lower extremity	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 2 Suspected external iliac artery endofibrosis. 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
US intravascular lower extremity	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 3 Suspected or known lower-extremity inflammatory vasculitides. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Arteriography lower extremity	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
MRA lower extremity without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CTA lower extremity with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
US duplex Doppler lower extremity	May Be Appropriate	O
MRA lower extremity without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
US intravascular lower extremity	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 4 Suspected or known dissection or connective tissue lower-extremity vascular diseases. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
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
US duplex Doppler lower extremity	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US intravascular lower extremity	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 5 Suspected or known other noninflammatory lower-extremity vascular diseases (such as fibromuscular dysplasia, segmental arterial mediolysis). Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Arteriography lower extremity	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
MRA lower extremity without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CTA lower extremity with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
US duplex Doppler lower extremity	May Be Appropriate	O
US intravascular lower extremity	May Be Appropriate	O
MRA lower extremity without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O

Variant: 6 Lower-extremity vascular trauma. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
CTA lower extremity with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
US duplex Doppler lower extremity	May Be Appropriate	O
Arteriography lower extremity	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
US intravascular lower extremity	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA lower extremity without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA lower extremity without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Panel Members

Christopher J. Francois, MD^a; Erik P. Skulborstad, MD, MBA^b; Sanjeeva P. Kalva, ^c; Bill S. Majdalany, MD^d; Jeremy D. Collins, MD^e; Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen, MD^f; Maros Ferencik, MD, PhD, MCR^g; Suvranu Ganguli, MD^h; A. Tuba Karagulle Kendi, MDⁱ; Minhaj S. Khaja, MD, MBA^j; Piotr Obara, MD^k; Thomas Ptak, MD, PhD, MPH^l; Stephen P. Reis, MD^m; Patrick D. Sutphin, MD, PhDⁿ; Karin E. Dill, MD^o.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

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)

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: Suspected popliteal entrapment syndrome. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Suspected popliteal entrapment syndrome. Initial imaging.
A. Arteriography lower extremity

Variant 1: Suspected popliteal entrapment syndrome. Initial imaging.
B. CTA Lower Extremity

Variant 1: Suspected popliteal entrapment syndrome. Initial imaging.
C. MRA Lower Extremity

Variant 1: Suspected popliteal entrapment syndrome. Initial imaging.
D. US Duplex Doppler Lower Extremity

Variant 1: Suspected popliteal entrapment syndrome. Initial imaging.
E. US Intravascular Lower Extremity

Variant 2: Suspected external iliac artery endofibrosis. Initial imaging.

Variant 2: Suspected external iliac artery endofibrosis. Initial imaging.
A. CTA Lower Extremity

Variant 2: Suspected external iliac artery endofibrosis. Initial imaging.
B. MRA Lower Extremity

Variant 2: Suspected external iliac artery endofibrosis. Initial imaging.
C. US Duplex Doppler Lower Extremity

Variant 2: Suspected external iliac artery endofibrosis. Initial imaging.
D. US Intravascular Lower Extremity

Variant 2: Suspected external iliac artery endofibrosis. Initial imaging.
E. Arteriography Lower Extremity

Variant 3: Suspected or known lower-extremity inflammatory vasculitides. Initial imaging.

Variant 3: Suspected or known lower-extremity inflammatory vasculitides. Initial imaging.
A. CTA Lower Extremity

Variant 3: Suspected or known lower-extremity inflammatory vasculitides. Initial imaging.
B. MRA Lower Extremity

Variant 3: Suspected or known lower-extremity inflammatory vasculitides. Initial imaging.
C. Arteriography Lower Extremity

Variant 3: Suspected or known lower-extremity inflammatory vasculitides. Initial imaging.
D. US Duplex Doppler Lower Extremity

Variant 3: Suspected or known lower-extremity inflammatory vasculitides. Initial imaging.
E. US Intravascular Lower Extremity

Variant 4: Suspected or known dissection or connective tissue lower-extremity vascular diseases. Initial imaging.

Variant 4: Suspected or known dissection or connective tissue lower-extremity vascular diseases. Initial imaging.
A. CTA Lower Extremity

Variant 4: Suspected or known dissection or connective tissue lower-extremity vascular diseases. Initial imaging.
B. MRA Lower Extremity

Variant 4: Suspected or known dissection or connective tissue lower-extremity vascular diseases. Initial imaging.
C. Arteriography Lower Extremity

Variant 4: Suspected or known dissection or connective tissue lower-extremity vascular diseases. Initial imaging.
D. US Duplex Doppler Lower Extremity

Variant 4: Suspected or known dissection or connective tissue lower-extremity vascular diseases. Initial imaging.
E. US Intravascular Lower Extremity

Variant 5: Suspected or known other noninflammatory lower-extremity vascular diseases (such as fibromuscular dysplasia, segmental arterial mediolysis). Initial imaging.

Variant 5: Suspected or known other noninflammatory lower-extremity vascular diseases (such as fibromuscular dysplasia, segmental arterial mediolysis). Initial imaging.
A. CTA Lower Extremity

Variant 5: Suspected or known other noninflammatory lower-extremity vascular diseases (such as fibromuscular dysplasia, segmental arterial mediolysis). Initial imaging.
B. MRA Lower Extremity

Variant 5: Suspected or known other noninflammatory lower-extremity vascular diseases (such as fibromuscular dysplasia, segmental arterial mediolysis). Initial imaging.
C. Arteriography Lower Extremity

Variant 6: Lower-extremity vascular trauma. Initial imaging.

Variant 6: Lower-extremity vascular trauma. Initial imaging.
A. CTA Lower Extremity

Variant 6: Lower-extremity vascular trauma. Initial imaging.
B. MRA Lower Extremity

Variant 6: Lower-extremity vascular trauma. Initial imaging.
C. Arteriography Lower Extremity

Variant 6: Lower-extremity vascular trauma. Initial imaging.
D. US Duplex Doppler Lower Extremity

Variant 6: Lower-extremity vascular trauma. Initial imaging.
E. US Intravascular Lower Extremity

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.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

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.	Chu LC, Johnson PT, Dietz HC, Fishman EK. CT angiographic evaluation of genetic vascular disease: role in detection, staging, and management of complex vascular pathologic conditions. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 202(5):1120-9, 2014 May.
2.	Dimmick SJ, Goh AC, Cauzza E, et al. Imaging appearances of Buerger's disease complications in the upper and lower limbs. Clin Radiol. 2012;67(12):1207-1211.
3.	Kalra VB, Gilbert JW, Malhotra A. Loeys-Dietz syndrome: cardiovascular, neuroradiological and musculoskeletal imaging findings. Pediatr Radiol. 2011;41(12):1495-1504; quiz 1616.
4.	Zilocchi M, Macedo TA, Oderich GS, Vrtiska TJ, Biondetti PR, Stanson AW. Vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: imaging findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(3):712-719.
5.	Goh BK, Tay KH, Tan SG. Diagnosis and surgical management of popliteal artery entrapment syndrome. ANZ J Surg. 2005;75(10):869-873.
6.	Ozkan U, Oguzkurt L, Tercan F, Pourbagher A. MRI and DSA findings in popliteal artery entrapment syndrome. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2008;14(2):106-110.
7.	Pillai J. A current interpretation of popliteal vascular entrapment. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48(6 Suppl):61S-65S; discussion 65S.
8.	Pillai J, Levien LJ, Haagensen M, Candy G, Cluver MD, Veller MG. Assessment of the medial head of the gastrocnemius muscle in functional compression of the popliteal artery. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48(5):1189-1196.
9.	Diehm N, Kickuth R, Baumgartner I, et al. Magnetic resonance angiography in infrapopliteal arterial disease: prospective comparison of 1.5 and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol. 2007;42(6):467-476.
10.	Kalva SP, Mueller PR. Vascular imaging in the elderly. Radiol Clin North Am. 2008;46(4):663-683, v.
11.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria®: Suspected Lower-Extremity Deep Vein Thrombosis. Available at: https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69416/Narrative/.
12.	Expert Panel on Vascular Imaging:, Ahmed O, Hanley M, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Vascular Claudication-Assessment for Revascularization. [Review]. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 14(5S):S372-S379, 2017 May.
13.	Cooper K, Majdalany BS, Kalva SP, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Lower Extremity Arterial Revascularization-Post-Therapy Imaging. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:S104-S15.
14.	Expert Panel on Vascular Imaging:, Weiss CR, Azene EM, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Sudden Onset of Cold, Painful Leg. [Review]. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 14(5S):S307-S313, 2017 May.
15.	Anil G, Tay KH, Howe TC, Tan BS. Dynamic computed tomography angiography: role in the evaluation of popliteal artery entrapment syndrome. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2011;34(2):259-270.
16.	Causey MW, Quan RW, Curry TK, Singh N. Ultrasound is a critical adjunct in the diagnosis and treatment of popliteal entrapment syndrome. J Vasc Surg. 2013;57(6):1695-1697.
17.	Kim SY, Min SK, Ahn S, Min SI, Ha J, Kim SJ. Long-term outcomes after revascularization for advanced popliteal artery entrapment syndrome with segmental arterial occlusion. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(1):90-97.
18.	Lane R, Nguyen T, Cuzzilla M, Oomens D, Mohabbat W, Hazelton S. Functional popliteal entrapment syndrome in the sportsperson. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 43(1):81-7, 2012 Jan.
19.	Zhong H, Gan J, Zhao Y, et al. Role of CT angiography in the diagnosis and treatment of popliteal vascular entrapment syndrome. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(6):W1147-1154.
20.	Collaborators I. Diagnosis and Management of Iliac Artery Endofibrosis: Results of a Delphi Consensus Study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2016;52:90-8.
21.	Falor AE, Zobel M, de Virgilio C. External iliac artery fibrosis in endurance athletes successfully treated with bypass grafting. Ann Vasc Surg. 2013;27(8):1183 e1181-1184.
22.	Shalhub S, Zierler RE, Smith W, Olmsted K, Clowes AW. Vasospasm as a cause for claudication in athletes with external iliac artery endofibrosis. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58(1):105-111.
23.	Fujii Y, Soga J, Nakamura S, et al. Classification of corkscrew collaterals in thromboangiitis obliterans (Buerger's disease): relationship between corkscrew type and prevalence of ischemic ulcers. Circ J. 2010;74(8):1684-1688.
24.	Dormand H, Mohiaddin RH. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance in Marfan syndrome. [Review]. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 15:33, 2013 Apr 15.
25.	Ketha SS, Bjarnason H, Oderich GS, Misra S. Clinical features and endovascular management of iliac artery fibromuscular dysplasia. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 25(6):949-53, 2014 Jun.
26.	Plouin PF, Perdu J, La Batide-Alanore A, Boutouyrie P, Gimenez-Roqueplo AP, Jeunemaitre X. Fibromuscular dysplasia. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2007;2:28.
27.	Kalva SP, Somarouthu B, Jaff MR, Wicky S. Segmental arterial mediolysis: clinical and imaging features at presentation and during follow-up. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2011;22(10):1380-1387.
28.	Michael M, Widmer U, Wildermuth S, Barghorn A, Duewell S, Pfammatter T. Segmental arterial mediolysis: CTA findings at presentation and follow-up. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(6):1463-1469.
29.	Shenouda M, Riga C, Naji Y, Renton S. Segmental arterial mediolysis: a systematic review of 85 cases. Ann Vasc Surg. 2014;28(1):269-277.
30.	Slavin RE. Segmental arterial mediolysis: course, sequelae, prognosis, and pathologic-radiologic correlation. Cardiovasc Pathol. 2009;18(6):352-360.
31.	Paravastu SC, Regi JM, Turner DR, Gaines PA. A contemporary review of cystic adventitial disease. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2012;46(1):5-14.
32.	Rouviere O, Feugier P, Gutierrez JP, Chevalier JM. Arterial endofibrosis in endurance athletes: angiographic features and classification. Radiology 2014;273:294-303.
33.	Peach G, Schep G, Palfreeman R, Beard JD, Thompson MM, Hinchliffe RJ. Endofibrosis and kinking of the iliac arteries in athletes: a systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012;43(2):208-217.
34.	Wallin D, Yaghoubian A, Rosing D, Walot I, Chauvapun J, de Virgilio C. Computed tomographic angiography as the primary diagnostic modality in penetrating lower extremity vascular injuries: a level I trauma experience. Ann Vasc Surg. 2011;25(5):620-623.
35.	Bas A, Dikici AS, Gulsen F, et al. Corkscrew Collateral Vessels in Buerger Disease: Vasa Vasorum or Vasa Nervorum. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2016;27(5):735-739.
36.	Blondin D, Lanzman R, Schellhammer F, et al. Fibromuscular dysplasia in living renal donors: still a challenge to computed tomographic angiography. Eur J Radiol. 2010;75(1):67-71.
37.	Bolen MA, Brinza E, Renapurkar RD, Kim ESH, Gornik HL. Screening CT Angiography of the Aorta, Visceral Branch Vessels, and Pelvic Arteries in Fibromuscular Dysplasia. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 10(5):554-561, 2017 05.
38.	Meuse MA, Turba UC, Sabri SS, et al. Treatment of renal artery fibromuscular dysplasia. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;13(2):126-133.
39.	Mousa AY, Campbell JE, Stone PA, Broce M, Bates MC, AbuRahma AF. Short- and long-term outcomes of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty/stenting of renal fibromuscular dysplasia over a ten-year period. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55(2):421-427.
40.	Sabharwal R, Vladica P, Coleman P. Multidetector spiral CT renal angiography in the diagnosis of renal artery fibromuscular dysplasia. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61(3):520-527.
41.	Mousa AY, Gill G. Renal fibromuscular dysplasia. [Review]. Semin Vasc Surg. 26(4):213-8, 2013 Dec.
42.	Watchorn J, Miles R, Moore N. The role of CT angiography in military trauma. Clin Radiol. 68(1):39-46, 2013 Jan.
43.	Patterson BO, Holt PJ, Cleanthis M, et al. Imaging vascular trauma. [Review]. Br J Surg. 99(4):494-505, 2012 Apr.
44.	Feliciano DV, Moore FA, Moore EE, et al. Evaluation and management of peripheral vascular injury. Part 1. Western Trauma Association/critical decisions in trauma. J Trauma 2011;70:1551-6.
45.	Wahlgren CM, Riddez L. Penetrating Vascular Trauma of the Upper and Lower Limbs. Current Trauma Reports 2016;2:11-20.
46.	deSouza IS, Benabbas R, McKee S, et al. Accuracy of Physical Examination, Ankle-Brachial Index, and Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Arterial Injury in Patients With Penetrating Extremity Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. [Review]. Academic Emergency Medicine. 24(8):994-1017, 2017 08.
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.