AC Portal
Document Navigator

Lower Extremity Arterial Claudication-Imaging Assessment for Revascularization

Variant: 1   Lower extremity arterial claudication-imaging assessment for revascularization. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler lower extremity Usually Appropriate O
Arteriography lower extremity Usually Appropriate ☢☢
MRA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
CTA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢☢
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
CTA lower extremity with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CTA lower extremity without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢

Panel Members
Ezana M. Azene, MD, PhDa; Michael L. Steigner, MDb; Ayaz Aghayev, MDc; Sarah Ahmad, MDd; Rachel E. Clough, MD, PhDe; Maros Ferencik, MD, PhD, MCRf; Sandeep S. Hedgire, MDg; Caitlin W. Hicks, MD, MSh; David S. Kirsch, MDi; Yoo Jin Lee, MDj; Lee A. Myers, MDk; Prashant Nagpal, MDl; Nicholas Osborne, MD, MSm; Anil K. Pillai, MDn; Beth Ripley, MD, PhDo; Nimarta Singh, MD, MPHp; Richard Thomas, MD, MBBSq; Sanjeeva P. Kalva, r.
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: Lower extremity arterial claudication-imaging assessment for revascularization. Initial imaging.
Variant 1: Lower extremity arterial claudication-imaging assessment for revascularization. Initial imaging.
A. Arteriography lower extremity
Variant 1: Lower extremity arterial claudication-imaging assessment for revascularization. Initial imaging.
B. CTA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff with IV contrast
Variant 1: Lower extremity arterial claudication-imaging assessment for revascularization. Initial imaging.
C. CTA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff without and with IV contrast
Variant 1: Lower extremity arterial claudication-imaging assessment for revascularization. Initial imaging.
D. CTA lower extremity with IV contrast
Variant 1: Lower extremity arterial claudication-imaging assessment for revascularization. Initial imaging.
E. CTA lower extremity without and with IV contrast
Variant 1: Lower extremity arterial claudication-imaging assessment for revascularization. Initial imaging.
F. MRA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff with IV contrast
Variant 1: Lower extremity arterial claudication-imaging assessment for revascularization. Initial imaging.
G. MRA abdomen and pelvis with bilateral lower extremity runoff without IV contrast
Variant 1: Lower extremity arterial claudication-imaging assessment for revascularization. Initial imaging.
H. MRA lower extremity without and with IV contrast
Variant 1: Lower extremity arterial claudication-imaging assessment for revascularization. Initial imaging.
I. MRA lower extremity without IV contrast
Variant 1: Lower extremity arterial claudication-imaging assessment for revascularization. Initial imaging.
J. US duplex Doppler 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.

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. Leng GC, Lee AJ, Fowkes FG, et al. Incidence, natural history and cardiovascular events in symptomatic and asymptomatic peripheral arterial disease in the general population. Int J Epidemiol 1996;25:1172-81.
2. Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR, et al. ACC/AHA 2005 guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): executive summary 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 47(6):1239-1312.
3. Alzamora MT, Fores R, Baena-Diez JM, et al. The peripheral arterial disease study (PERART/ARTPER): prevalence and risk factors in the general population. BMC Public Health 2010;10:38.
4. Muluk SC, Muluk VS, Kelley ME, et al. Outcome events in patients with claudication: a 15-year study in 2777 patients. Journal of vascular surgery 2001;33:251-7; discussion 57-8.
5. 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. Vasc Med 2017;22:NP1-NP43.
6. Sigvant B, Lundin F, Wahlberg E. The Risk of Disease Progression in Peripheral Arterial Disease is Higher than Expected: A Meta-Analysis of Mortality and Disease Progression in Peripheral Arterial Disease. European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery 2016;51:395-403.
7. Fuglestad MA, Hernandez H, Gao Y, et al. A low-cost, wireless near-infrared spectroscopy device detects the presence of lower extremity atherosclerosis as measured by computed tomographic angiography and characterizes walking impairment in peripheral artery disease. J Vasc Surg. 71(3):946-957, 2020 03.
8. Huang CL, Wu YW, Hwang CL, et al. The application of infrared thermography in evaluation of patients at high risk for lower extremity peripheral arterial disease. J Vasc Surg. 2011;54(4):1074-1080.
9. Rutherford RB, Lowenstein DH, Klein MF. Combining segmental systolic pressures and plethysmography to diagnose arterial occlusive disease of the legs. Am J Surg 1979; 138(2):211-218.
10. 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.
11. Vahl AC, Geselschap J, Montauban van Swijndregt AD, et al. Contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography versus intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography for treatment planning in patients with peripheral arterial disease: a randomised controlled diagnostic trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2008;35(5):514-521; discussion 522-513.
12. Thiele BL, Strandness DE, Jr. Accuracy of angiographic quantification of peripheral atherosclerosis. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 1983;26(3):223-236.
13. 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.
14. 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: 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. Circulation 2010;121:e266-369.
15. 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.
16. Schernthaner R, Stadler A, Lomoschitz F, et al. Multidetector CT angiography in the assessment of peripheral arterial occlusive disease: accuracy in detecting the severity, number, and length of stenoses. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(4):665-671.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Heijenbrok-Kal MH, Kock MC, Hunink MG. Lower extremity arterial disease: multidetector CT angiography meta-analysis. Radiology. 2007;245(2):433-439.
20. Willmann JK, Wildermuth S, Pfammatter T, et al. Aortoiliac and renal arteries: prospective intraindividual comparison of contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MR angiography and multi-detector row CT angiography. Radiology. 226(3):798-811, 2003 Mar.
21. Kayhan A, Palabiyik F, Serinsoz S, et al. Multidetector CT angiography versus arterial duplex USG in diagnosis of mild lower extremity peripheral arterial disease: is multidetector CT a valuable screening tool? European journal of radiology 2012;81:542-6.
22. 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.
23. Machida H, Tanaka I, Fukui R, et al. Dual-Energy Spectral CT: Various Clinical Vascular Applications. Radiographics 2016;36:1215-32.
24. Hallett RL, Fleischmann D. Tools of the trade for CTA: MDCT scanners and contrast medium injection protocols. Techniques in vascular and interventional radiology 2006;9:134-42.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. Visser K, Hunink MG. Peripheral arterial disease: gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography versus color-guided duplex US--a meta-analysis. Radiology. 2000;216(1):67-77.
32. de Vries M, Ouwendijk R, Flobbe K, et al. Peripheral arterial disease: clinical and cost comparisons between duplex US and contrast-enhanced MR angiography--a multicenter randomized trial. Radiology. 2006;240(2):401-410.
33. Miyazaki M, Akahane M. Non-contrast enhanced MR angiography: Established techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(1):1-19.
34. 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.
35. Offerman EJ, Hodnett PA, Edelman RR, Koktzoglou I. Nonenhanced methods for lower-extremity MRA: a phantom study examining the effects of stenosis and pathologic flow waveforms at 1.5T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 33(2):401-8, 2011 Feb.
36. Hoey ET, Ganeshan A, Puni R, Henderson J, Crowe PM. Fresh blood imaging of the peripheral vasculature: an emerging unenhanced MR technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 195(6):1444-1448.
37. Jager KA, Phillips DJ, Martin RL, et al. Noninvasive mapping of lower limb arterial lesions. Ultrasound Med Biol. 1985;11(3):515-521.
38. Fletcher JP, Kershaw LZ, Chan A, Lim J. Noninvasive imaging of the superficial femoral artery using ultrasound Duplex scanning. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 1990;31(3):364-367.
39. Leng GC, Whyman MR, Donnan PT, et al. Accuracy and reproducibility of duplex ultrasonography in grading femoropopliteal stenoses. J Vasc Surg. 1993;17(3):510-517.
40. de Vries SO, Hunink MG, Polak JF. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves as a technique for meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of duplex ultrasonography in peripheral arterial disease. Acad Radiol. 1996;3(4):361-369.
41. Allard L, Cloutier G, Durand LG, Roederer GO, Langlois YE. Limitations of ultrasonic duplex scanning for diagnosing lower limb arterial stenoses in the presence of adjacent segment disease. J Vasc Surg. 1994;19(4):650-657.
42. Martinez-Rico C, Marti-Mestre X, Jimenez-Guiu X, Espinar-Garcia E, Cervellera-Perez D, Vila-Coll R. Ultrasound Surveillance in Endovascular Revascularization of Lower Limbs. Ann Vasc Surg. 56:274-279, 2019 Apr.
43. Chan KA, Junia A. Lower extremity peripheral artery disease: a basic approach. [Review]. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 81(3):1-9, 2020 Mar 02.
44. 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.