Q. Zhang et al., IMPEDANCE ANALYSIS COMPARED WITH QUICKSCAN IN THE DETECTION OF GRAFT-RELATED STENOSES, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery, 9(2), 1995, pp. 218-221
Objective: To compare two methods of detecting graft stenoses after in
frainguinal bypass. Design: Prospective study. Setting: Vascular Labor
atory, University Hospital. Materials: 110 infrainguinal graft studies
(60 vein, 50 PTFE) in 74 patients were performed prospectively to det
ect graft-related stenoses. Chief Outcome Measures: The diagnostic acc
uracy of computer assisted impedance analysis was assessed using Quick
scan (QS) as the gold standard in the detection of graft-related steno
ses. 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 greater than or equal to 1:4, were
confirmed with intraarterial digital substraction angiography (IADSA)
. Eight stenoses with a frequency ratio of 1:3 continued graft surveil
lance. The median thigh impedance score of vein grafts with QS confirm
ed stenoses was 0.51 (0.36-0.70) compared with 0.44 (0.30-0.60) for no
n-stenosed vein grafts (p=0.015, Mann-Whitney U test). The median thig
h 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 c
alf and 90%, 46% taking the higher score on calf or 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. Conclusions: If the higher im
pedance score derived from either the calf or thigh was used to detect
stenoses, 60% (64/106) of graft studies would have been referred far
intervention. We believe this high level of intervention is unrealisti
c and cannot therefore recommend impedance analysis for graft surveill
ance.