first, understand that venography usually is performed before IVUS. Thus while venography is done blinded to results of IVUS, the opposite is not true yet. That will be food for another study. The goal here is to determine whether there are valvular, web, septal pathology that is not detected by venography that can be seen by IVUS.Cece wrote:Very nice!drsclafani wrote:This data is also being reviewed. Preliminarily: venography looks normal in 40 per cent of the azygous valvular stenoses found by IVUS
You've seen the abstract on IVUS presented at CIRSE, with a very small sample size but similar findings that IVUS was able to show stenoses not seen on venography?
http://www.thisisms.com/forum/chronic-c ... ml#p175921
Another side of the coin is if there are any cases that are the opposite, where venography shows an apparent stenosis that, upon using IVUS, is not a real one. And you must be tabulating how often the venography looks normal in the jugulars too but IVUS reveals a stenosis. Is this less common in the jugulars than in the azygous?
But to answer your comment, yes, there are instances of abnormal venograms and unremarkable IVUS exams.
I would not suggest that either ivus or venography should be considered the gold standard by itself