Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 55, Issue 2 , Pages 428-436.e6, February 2012

Mesenteric/celiac duplex ultrasound interpretation criteria revisited

Presented at the Thirty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Southern Association for Vascular Surgery, Naples, Fla, January 19-22, 2011.

  • Ali F. AbuRahma, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, West Virginia University, Charleston, WV
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Ali F. AbuRahma, MD, Department of Surgery, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, West Virginia University, 3110 MacCorkle Ave, SE, Charleston, WV 25304
  • ,
  • Patrick A. Stone, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, West Virginia University, Charleston, WV
  • ,
  • Mohit Srivastava, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, West Virginia University, Charleston, WV
  • ,
  • L. Scott Dean, PhD, MBA

      Affiliations

    • Charleston Area Medical Center, Charleston, WV
  • ,
  • Tammi Keiffer, RN

      Affiliations

    • Charleston Area Medical Center, Charleston, WV
  • ,
  • Stephen M. Hass, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, West Virginia University, Charleston, WV
  • ,
  • Albeir Y. Mousa, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Surgery, Robert C. Byrd Health Sciences Center, West Virginia University, Charleston, WV

Received 14 January 2011; accepted 10 August 2011. published online 23 December 2011.

Background

Several published studies with a small sample size have reported differing results of duplex ultrasound (DUS) utilizing different threshold velocities in detecting significant stenosis of superior mesenteric (SMA) or celiac arteries (CA). The present study is based on the largest number of mesenteric duplex/angiography correlations reported to date for the diagnosis of SMA/CA stenosis.

Methods

One hundred fifty-three patients (151 SMA and 150 CA) had both DUS and arteriography. Receiver operator curves (ROC) were used to analyze peak systolic velocity (PSV), end diastolic velocity (EDV), and SMA or CA/aortic PSV ratio in detecting ≥50% and ≥70% stenosis.

Results

For SMA (151 arteries: 84 with ≥50% stenosis [54 of which had ≥70% stenosis] based on angiography): the PSV threshold that provided the highest overall accuracy (OA) for detecting ≥50% SMA stenosis was ≥295 cm/s (sensitivity [sens.] 87%, specificity [spec.] 89%, and OA 88%); and for detecting ≥70% SMA, it was ≥400 cm/s (sens. 72%, spec. 93%, and OA 85%). The EDV threshold that provided the highest OA for detecting ≥50% stenosis was ≥45 cm/s (sens. 79%, spec. 79%, and OA 79%); and for ≥70% stenosis was ≥70 cm/s (sens. 65%, spec. 95%, and OA 84%). ROC analysis showed that PSV was better than EDV and SMA/aortic PSV ratio for ≥50% stenosis of SMA (P = .003 and P = .0005). For celiac arteries (150 arteries: 105 with ≥50% stenosis [62 of which had ≥70% stenosis]): the PSV threshold that provided the highest OA for ≥50% stenosis was ≥240 cm/s (sens. 87, spec. 83%, and OA 86%); and for ≥70% stenosis was ≥320 cm/s (sens. 80%, spec. 89%, and OA 85%). The EDV threshold that provided the highest OA for ≥50% stenosis was ≥40 cm/s (sens. 84%, spec. 48%, and OA 73%); and for ≥70% stenosis was ≥100 cm/s (sens. 58%, spec. 91%, and OA 77%). ROC analysis showed that PSV was better than EDV and SMA/aortic PSV ratio for ≥50% stenosis of CA (P < .0001 and P = .0410.)

Conclusions

PSV values can be used in detecting ≥50% and ≥70% SMA/CA stenosis and were better than EDVs and ratios. Previously published data must be validated in individual vascular laboratories. Our results will need prospective validation.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 Competition of interest: none.

 Additional material for this article may be found online at www.jvascsurg.org.

 The editors and reviewers of this article have no relevant financial relationships to disclose per the JVS policy that requires reviewers to decline review of any manuscript for which they may have a competition of interest.

PII: S0741-5214(11)02083-0

doi:10.1016/j.jvs.2011.08.052

Journal of Vascular Surgery
Volume 55, Issue 2 , Pages 428-436.e6, February 2012