Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
8756479309336216v1
25/4/185    most recent
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Scissons, R.
Right arrow Articles by Comerota, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Confusion of Peripheral Arterial Doppler Waveform Terminology

Robert Scissons, RVT

Jobst Vascular Center Laboratory, Toledo, Ohio, bob.scissons{at}promedica.org

Anthony Comerota, MD, FACS, RVT

Jobst Vascular Center Laboratory, Toledo, Ohio

Characterization of peripheral arterial waveforms is basic to the diagnosis of vascular disease. Surveys indicate inconsistent application of traditional waveform descriptors. This study reviews literature to identify areas of confusion. Publications were reviewed to determine whether triphasic, biphasic, and monophasic terms were defined; if biphasic was linked with diastolic flow reversal; whether pandiastolic flow was associated with biphasic or monophasic terminology; and whether waveform illustrations had a zero baseline. Ninety-four publications were reviewed. Triphasic and monophasic were defined in 81%, biphasic in 48%. Biphasic was classified with flow reversal in 38%. Pandiastolic flow was not addressed in 57% but associated with monophasic in 47% and biphasic in 5%. Twenty-one percent of the publications had an illustration without a zero-flow baseline. This review suggests a lack of consensus when classifying arterial blood flow with traditional waveform descriptors. Waveform characterization inconsistencies are undermining comprehension of Doppler principles and may lead to inappropriate testing. A multisocietal consensus panel should accept responsibility for resolving this issue.

Key Words: waveform • review • characterization • confusion

This version was published on July 1, 2009

Journal of Diagnostic Medical Sonography, Vol. 25, No. 4, 185-194 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/8756479309336216
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?