Zhang Q, Houghton A D, Derodra J, King D H, Reidy J F, Taylor P R
Department of Surgery, Guy's Hospital, London U.K.
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1995 Feb;9(2):218-21. doi: 10.1016/s1078-5884(05)80093-0.
To compare two methods of detecting graft stenoses after infrainguinal bypass.
Prospective study.
Vascular Laboratory, University Hospital.
110 infrainguinal graft studies (60 vein, 50 PTFE) in 74 patients were performed prospectively to detect graft-related stenoses.
The diagnostic accuracy of computer assisted impedance analysis was assessed using Quickscan (QS) as the gold standard in the detection of graft-related stenoses. CHIEF RESULTS: QS showed occlusion in 4 grafts (two vein and two PTFE), no stenosis in 86 graft studies and stenoses in 20 studies. All 12 stenoses with a frequency ratio > or = 1.4, were confirmed with intraarterial digital subtraction angiography (IADSA). Eight stenoses with a frequency ratio of 1:3 continued graft surveillance. The median thigh impedance score of vein grafts with QS confirmed stenoses was 0.51 (0.36-0.70) compared with 0.44 (0.30-0.60) for non-stenosed vein grafts (p = 0.015, Mann-Whitney U test). The median thigh impedance score in PTFE graft with QS confirmed stenosis was 0.58 (0.53-0.76) compared with 0.42 (0.28-0.73 for non-stenosed grafts (p = 0.0001). An impedance score > 0.45 has been suggested for detection of "at risk" grafts. Using QS as the gold standard, impedance assessment gave 90% sensitivity, 63% specificity in the thigh; 80%, 52% in the calf and 90%, 46% taking the higher score on calf for thigh data. Taking a QS frequency ratio of 1:4 as indicating a significant stenosis (50% diameter reduction), 11% (12/106) of surveillance studies went on to intervention, that is 12/74 (16%) grafts.
If the higher impedance score derived from either the calf or thigh was used to detect stenoses, 60% (64/106) of graft studies would have been referred for intervention. We believe this high level of intervention is unrealistic and cannot therefore recommend impedance analysis for graft surveillance.
比较两种检测股下旁路移植术后移植物狭窄的方法。
前瞻性研究。
大学医院血管实验室。
对74例患者的110个股下移植研究(60例静脉,50例聚四氟乙烯)进行前瞻性研究以检测与移植物相关的狭窄。
以Quickscan(QS)作为检测与移植物相关狭窄的金标准,评估计算机辅助阻抗分析的诊断准确性。
QS显示4例移植物闭塞(2例静脉和2例聚四氟乙烯),86例移植物研究无狭窄,20例有狭窄。所有12例频率比≥1.4的狭窄均经动脉内数字减影血管造影(IADSA)证实。8例频率比为1:3的狭窄继续进行移植物监测。经QS证实有狭窄的静脉移植物大腿阻抗评分中位数为0.51(0.36 - 0.70),无狭窄的静脉移植物为0.44(0.30 - 0.60)(p = 0.015,Mann-Whitney U检验)。经QS证实有狭窄的聚四氟乙烯移植物大腿阻抗评分中位数为0.58(0.53 - 0.76),无狭窄的移植物为0.42(0.28 - 0.73)(p = 0.0001)。有人建议阻抗评分>0.45用于检测“有风险”的移植物。以QS作为金标准,阻抗评估在大腿的敏感性为90%,特异性为63%;在小腿分别为80%和52%;综合小腿和大腿数据,取小腿较高评分时,敏感性为90%,特异性为46%。以QS频率比1:4表示显著狭窄(直径减少50%),11%(12/106)的监测研究继续进行干预,即12/74(16%)的移植物。
如果使用来自小腿或大腿的较高阻抗评分来检测狭窄,60%(64/106)的移植物研究将被转诊进行干预。我们认为这种高水平的干预不现实,因此不推荐使用阻抗分析进行移植物监测。