This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Murie, J.A. Articles by Sheldon, C.D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Murie, J.A. Articles by Sheldon, C.D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Pressure Contour Analysis in the Assessment of Arterial Stenosis

Department of Vascular Surgery, Gartnavel General Hospital and Western Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland

R.O. Quin

Department of Vascular Surgery, Gartnavel General Hospital and Western Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland

H. Forrest

Department of Vascular Surgery, Gartnavel General Hospital and Western Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland

C.D. Sheldon

Department of Vascular Surgery, Gartnavel General Hospital and Western Infirmary, Glasgow, Scotland

Femoral artery pressure contour can be measured directly by percutaneous needle puncture and may be a useful indicator of proximal vessel stenosis. Pressure waveform in 53 limbs was compared with radiological appearance of the aorto-iliac segment. Forty-one limbs were graded angiographically as normal and 12 as stenosed. Pressure contour was studied at rest and after intra-arterial injection of papaverine. The following parameters were examined:

1. systolic pressure at rest

2. systolic pressure after papaverine

3. per cent reduction of systolic pressure after papaverine

4. pulse pressure at rest

5. pulse pressure after papaverine

6. per cent reduction in pulse pressure after papaverine

7. maximal gradient (dp/dt) at rest

8. maximal gradient after papaverine: p<0.001 (Figure 5b)

9. maximal gradient after papaverine : p<0.05 (Figure 6) maximal gradient at rest

A significant difference between the angiographic normal and stenotic groups was found in the values of all parameters. p<0.001 for 1 to 8 inclusive; p<0.05 for 9. Good discrimination between groups was achieved only by 3, 6 and 8. Three produced the best discrimination: systolic pressure reduction after papaverine 14 per cent indicating stenosis (1 in 12 false negative) and < 14 per cent indicating no stenosis (no false positive).

Angiology, Vol. 34, No. 7, 445-451 (1983)
DOI: 10.1177/000331978303400704


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?