Comparison of intravascular ultrasound and venography in the intraoperative evaluation of iliac vein compression syndrome

Yong Ding, Gefei Zhao, Min Zhou, Liang Cai, Lixing Wang, Xiao Tang, D. Guo, Zhenyu Shi
{"title":"Comparison of intravascular ultrasound and venography in the intraoperative evaluation of iliac vein compression syndrome","authors":"Yong Ding, Gefei Zhao, Min Zhou, Liang Cai, Lixing Wang, Xiao Tang, D. Guo, Zhenyu Shi","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1007-631X.2019.09.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo compare intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with venography in the intraoperative evaluation of iliac vein compression syndrome (IVCS). \n \n \nMethods \nFrom Sep 2017 to Mar 2018, consecutive patients with suspicious iliac vein compression, underwent both venography and IVUS. The results were compared between IVUS and venography. \n \n \nResults \n40 patients with 48 limbs were enrolled. Venography underestimated both the diameter and area stenosis compared with IVUS (39.63%±15.48% vs. 64.97%±16.42%, P<0.001; 51.83%±18.23% vs. 59.19%±14.17%, P=0.021, respectively). The eccentricity detected by venography was lower than IVUS (0.69±0.17 vs. 0.93±0.17, P<0.001). Taking IVUS as gold standard, the sensitivity and the specificity of venography for detecting a ≥50% stenosis was 18.92% and 81.82%, and the intertechnique agreement was extremely low between venography and IVUS (κ=0.004). \n \n \nConclusion \nCompared with IVUS, venography underestimated the degree of stenosis in IVCS. The sensitivity of venography in detecting a significant stenosis was very low. \n \n \nKey words: \nUltrasonography, interventional; Phlebography; Iliac vein compression syndrome","PeriodicalId":66425,"journal":{"name":"中华普通外科杂志","volume":"34 1","pages":"753-756"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华普通外科杂志","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1007-631X.2019.09.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To compare intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with venography in the intraoperative evaluation of iliac vein compression syndrome (IVCS). Methods From Sep 2017 to Mar 2018, consecutive patients with suspicious iliac vein compression, underwent both venography and IVUS. The results were compared between IVUS and venography. Results 40 patients with 48 limbs were enrolled. Venography underestimated both the diameter and area stenosis compared with IVUS (39.63%±15.48% vs. 64.97%±16.42%, P<0.001; 51.83%±18.23% vs. 59.19%±14.17%, P=0.021, respectively). The eccentricity detected by venography was lower than IVUS (0.69±0.17 vs. 0.93±0.17, P<0.001). Taking IVUS as gold standard, the sensitivity and the specificity of venography for detecting a ≥50% stenosis was 18.92% and 81.82%, and the intertechnique agreement was extremely low between venography and IVUS (κ=0.004). Conclusion Compared with IVUS, venography underestimated the degree of stenosis in IVCS. The sensitivity of venography in detecting a significant stenosis was very low. Key words: Ultrasonography, interventional; Phlebography; Iliac vein compression syndrome
术中血管内超声与静脉造影评价髂静脉压迫综合征的比较
目的比较血管内超声(IVUS)与静脉造影(IVCS)在术中评价髂静脉压迫综合征(IVCS)的价值。方法2017年9月至2018年3月,连续对可疑髂静脉受压患者行静脉造影和IVUS检查。比较IVUS与静脉造影结果。结果入选患者40例,四肢48条。与IVUS相比,静脉造影低估了内径和狭窄面积(39.63%±15.48% vs. 64.97%±16.42%,P<0.001;51.83%±18.23%∶59.19%±14.17%,P=0.021)。静脉造影检测偏心率低于IVUS(0.69±0.17比0.93±0.17,P<0.001)。以IVUS为金标准,静脉造影检测≥50%狭窄的灵敏度和特异性分别为18.92%和81.82%,两者技术间一致性极低(κ=0.004)。结论与IVUS相比,静脉造影低估了IVCS的狭窄程度。静脉造影检测明显狭窄的灵敏度很低。关键词:超声;介入性;静脉造影术;髂静脉压迫综合征
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9825
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信