Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus computed tomographic angiography for surveillance of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Diagnosis of Type IV Endoleak After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Using Visualization With Novel Software

A Type IV endoleak is a very rare complication following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and differential diagnosis can be difficult. Reported here is a case that showed the development of a Type IV endoleak after an EVAR procedure, for which a novel software was useful to differentiate that from Type I based on visual confirmation. The 89-year-old man was diagnosed with a large abdominal aortic aneurysm, sized 70 mm, as shown by computed tomography (CT). EVAR was performed in a routine fashion using an Endurant II stent graft. Postoperative CT revealed a massive endoleak around the neck that was difficult to differentiate between Types I and IV. The use of the novel software Viewtify (SCIEMENT, Inc., Tokyo, Japan) to visualize the endoleak with surrounding tissues as real-time three-dimensional computer graphics (3DCG) resulted in confirmation that the endoleak was not from the proximal end but rather the stent graft body. CT findings obtained one week later showed that the endoleak had diminished and no additional procedures were needed. Following a diagnosis of endoleak after EVAR, images viewed with Viewtify helped to confirm the appropriate diagnosis. This novel software was found useful to clarify the position and mechanism of a Type IV endoleak.

Contrast-enhanced US Evaluation of Endoleaks after Endovascular Stent Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) carries high morbidity and mortality. Elective repair of AAA with endovascular stent-grafts requires lifetime imaging surveillance for potential complications, most commonly endoleaks. Because endoleaks result in antegrade or retrograde systemic arterialized flow into the excluded aneurysm sac, patients are at risk for recurrent aneurysm sac growth with the potential to rupture. Multiphasic CT has been the main imaging modality for surveillance and symptom evaluation, but contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) offers a useful alternative that avoids radiation and iodinated contrast material. CEUS is at least equivalent to CT for detecting endoleak and may be more sensitive. The authors provide a general protocol and technical considerations needed to perform CEUS of the abdominal aorta after endovascular stent repair. When there are no complications, the stent-graft lumen has homogeneous enhancement, and no contrast material is present in the aneurysm sac outside the stented lumen. In patients with an antegrade endoleak, contrast material is seen simultaneously in the aneurysm sac and stent-graft lumen, while delayed enhancement in the sac is due to retrograde leak. Recognition of artifacts and other potential pitfalls for CEUS studies is important for examination performance and interpretation. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2022.

Colour Duplex and/or Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Compared with Computed Tomography Angiography for Endoleak Detection after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aims to assess the role of Color Duplex Ultrasound with or without contrast media for surveillance following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). A systematic search of the literature published until April 2022 was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The pooled rates of endoleak detection through Contrast-Enhanced or Color Duplex Ultrasound (CEUS or CDUS) and Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effect analysis. Thirty-eight studies were considered eligible for inclusion. The total number of patients in the included studies was 5214 between 1997 and 2021. The overall pooled rate of endoleak detection using CDUS and CTA was 82.59% and 97.22%, while the rates for CEUS and CTA were 96.67% and 92.82%, respectively. The findings of the present study support the use of the CEUS for endoleak detection. However, it should be integrated into institutional protocols for EVAR surveillance to further evaluate its clinical utility in the post-EVAR period before it can be recommended as the sole imaging modality after EVAR.

Percutaneous contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided transabdominal sac embolization is an effective technique for treating complicated type II endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

In the present study, we evaluated and compared the outcomes of transarterial embolization with those of percutaneous contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided transabdominal sac embolization (PUSE) for type II endoleaks (T2ELs).

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted of consecutive patients who had undergone T2EL embolization between January 2015 and December 2020 at our center. The cohort was divided into two groups according to the embolization approach: PUSE vs transarterial. Freedom from aneurysm growth, safety, immediate technical success, freedom from persistent T2ELs, and the repeat embolization rate were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients and 28 embolization procedures (PUSE, n = 16; transarterial embolization, n = 12) were examined. Both the fluoroscopic time (13.3 ± 3.2 minutes vs 35.0 ± 7.0 minutes; P < .001) and the procedural time (84.9 ± 8.4 minutes vs 117.1 ± 14.8 minutes; P < .001) were significantly shorter in the PUSE group than in the transarterial group. After the embolization procedure, the patients were followed up for a mean duration of 24.7 ± 14.9 months for the PUSE group and 35.9 ± 21.1 months for the transarterial group (P = .1323). Five patients in the transarterial group had undergone unsuccessful embolization, with success in 7 of the 12 patients in the transarterial group and all 16 patients in the PUSE group (P = .0081). Failure had resulted from failed transarterial access or a recurrent T2EL. Three of the five patients had undergone subsequent PUSE during follow-up. No patient in the PUSE group had experienced sac expansion compared with four patients in the transarterial group (P = .0242). Similarly, no patient in the PUSE group had developed a newly discovered T2EL vs four patients in the transarterial group (P = .0242). Thus, the outcomes were markedly better for the PUSE group than were those for the transarterial group. A major procedure-related complication (abdominal abscess) occurred in one patient in the transarterial group.

CONCLUSIONS

PUSE is safe and effective for managing T2ELs. It yields better outcomes in terms of preventing aneurysm growth, decreasing the incidence of repeat embolization and complications, minimizing the recurrence of T2ELs, and reducing the fluoroscopic and procedural times. We, thus, regard it as the preferred approach for the management of T2ELs.

Can we replace computed tomography angiography by contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the surveillance of patients submitted to aortoiliac aneurysm repair?

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed for evaluation of CEUS (contrast-enhanced ultrasound) for the detection of endoleaks after EVAR (endovascular aortic aneurysms repair) as an alternative to CTA (computed tomography angiography), the gold standard in post-EVAR surveillance.

METHODS

Post-EVAR surveillance of patients who underwent CEUS and CTA was retrospectively analyzed to compare the accuracy of CEUS compared to CTA. For that, the following parameters were analyzed: the largest aneurysm diameter, type of endoleaks, and the time elapsed after EVAR using both surveillance tests.

RESULTS

The study involved 110 pairs of exams in patients with infrarenal aortoiliac or isolated iliac artery aneurysm, covering predominantly a male population (89%). The time elapsed after EVAR using CEUS or CTA exams were statistically similar, ranging from one to 58 months (mean 12.2) and one to 65 months (mean 9.7), respectively (p = 0.124). CEUS sensitivity was 75.5%, specificity 96.7%, false positives were 24.5%, and false negatives were 3.3%. The accuracy between the two exams was 87.3%. A secondary analysis, comparing CTA with CEUS as a reference standard, revealed CEUS sensitivity of 24.5%, higher than CTA for detecting endoleaks, with a concordance rate of true positive results of 75.5%. Among the endoleaks detected solely by CEUS (12 cases), one case was type Ia and eleven were type II, while those detected only by CTA (2 cases), one was type Ia and one type II. Additionally, a type II endoleak associated with type Ib, identified by CEUS, was seen as type II for CTA only. There was no difference between the pre-EVAR and the post-EVAR diameters of aortoiliac aneurysm (p = 0.058), both for CEUS and CTA. Computed tomography angiography, on the other hand, showed significant aneurysm diameter reduction compared to CEUS for isolated iliac artery aneurysms (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound was more effective than CTA in identifying and characterizing endoleaks in patients undergoing EVAR, especially type II endoleaks. The advantages include efficacy and, particularly, safety, and must be considered in EVAR surveillance protocols so that its use becomes widespread. We understand that CEUS, as a surveillance exam, considerably reduces risks to patients compared to CTA.

Innovations in Vascular Ultrasound

There are several vascular ultrasound technologies that are useful in challenging diagnostic situations. New vascular ultrasound applications include directional power Doppler ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, B-flow imaging, microvascular imaging, 3-dimensional vascular ultrasound, intravascular ultrasound, photoacoustic imaging, and vascular elastography. All these techniques are complementary to Doppler ultrasound and provide greater ability to visualize small vessels, have higher sensitivity to detect slow flow, and better assess vascular wall and lumen while overcoming limitations color Doppler. The ultimate goal of these technologies is to make ultrasound competitive with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging for vascular imaging.

Intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound examination for endoleak detection after complex and infrarenal endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound (iCEUS) examination for endoleak (EL) detection after complex endovascular aortic repairs (EVAR) in comparison with the standard angiographic completion control.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients (16 male; median age, 73 years [range, 54-81 years]) who underwent single-stage EVARs at our center between October 2016 and October 2018 were included prospectively. The procedures comprised fenestrated and/or branched EVAR (n = 14; 66%), infrarenal EVAR (n = 5; 24%), infrarenal EVAR with bilateral iliac side branch implantation (n = 1; 5%), and infrarenal EVAR with occluder implantation into the internal iliac artery (n = 1; 5%). The used endografts included 14 custom made devices (Cook, Australia Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia, n = 6; Vascutek Terumo, Glasgow, Scotland, n = 8) and seven standard infrarenal endografts (Medtronic Inc, Santa Rosa, Calif, n = 5; Vascutek Terumo, Glasgow, Scotland, n = 1; Cook, n = 1). All patients underwent an angiographic completion control for EL detection followed by iCEUS examination. The iCEUS examination was performed by the same examiner who was blinded to the angiography result. In addition to the comparison of the angiographic results to iCEUS examination, iCEUS examination was also compared with the computed tomography angiography (CTA) before discharge (median time to CTA, 5 days [range, 1-7 days]).

RESULTS

Angiography detected eight type II EL, defining the EL origin in four cases. In addition to detecting all of those eight EL, iCEUS examination revealed eight more type II EL not seen on angiography (P = .002) and allowed a definition of the EL origin in all cases. CTA before discharge showed a persistence of only 5 of the 16 type II EL detected by iCEUS examination (31%, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

An iCEUS examination can be used as another adjunct to decrease exposure to contrast agent and radiation during EVAR, including complex procedures. A replacement of the completion angiography by iCEUS examination is conceivable for infrarenal EVAR, but also for endovascular type IV or type V repairs. Future studies with larger patient numbers will help to further validate iCEUS examination during complex EVAR.

Is contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) superior to computed tomography angiography (CTA) in detection of endoleaks in post-EVAR patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) compared to computed tomography angiography (CTA) for the detection of endoleaks within endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) surveillance at time of follow up.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Ovid) to identify all articles assessing diagnostic specificity and accuracy with comparative modality (CEUS vs CTA) for endoleaks in adult patients at time of follow-up following EVAR. Databases where evaluated and assessed to October 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 1773 patients were analysed from across 18 included studies in the quantitative analysis of the parameters of interest. There was no significant difference in detection rate of endoleak type I with detection rate 4.3% for both groups OR 1.09, 95% CI [0.78, 1.53], p = 0.62; type II endoleak detection rate was 22% in the CEUS group vs 23% in the CTA group OR 1.16, 95% CI [0.75-1.79], p = 0.50; while type III detection rate was 1.8% in CEUS group vs 2% in CTA group OR 0.85, 95% CI [0.43, 1.68], p = 0.64. However, the sensitivity rate for endoleak detection was higher in CEUS (p = 0.001) while no difference in specificity rate was noted (p = 0.28). There was higher rate of missed endoleaks in CTA groups (n = 12 vs n = 20).

CONCLUSION

Evidences from this study suggest that contrast-enhanced ultrasound scan post-EVAR can be utilised as safe and effective method in screening for endoleaks during post-EVAR surveillance without exposing the patient for additional risk of radiation and contrast. CEUS conveys no inferiority to CTA in detecting endoleaks.

A Narrative Review on Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Aortic Endograft Endoleak Surveillance

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms have been performed successfully since 1991. However, 20% to 50% of these patients may develop an endoleak or continued aneurysmal sac expansion or perfusion despite stent graft coverage. Current recommendations suggest lifelong surveillance with computed tomographic angiography (CTA) at least 1 month after intervention and yearly after that. In select patients with a stable aneurysm sac on computed tomography performed 1 year after treatment, future screening could be performed with ultrasonography. However, color Doppler ultrasound can fail to detect as many as 31% of endoleaks. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) provides an alternative approach to excluded aneurysm sac follow-up imaging. The Society for Vascular Surgery notes a need for further research on the role of CEUS in endovascular aortic repair surveillance. The European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology suggests that early results are promising. Meta-analyses report pooled sensitivities and specificities of CEUS compared with CTA for the detection of endoleak between 89% and 98% and 86% and 88%, respectively. Owing to the dynamic flow information it provides, CEUS may actually be more sensitive than CTA at detection and characterization in select circumstances. Challenges with adoption, patient selection, and operator dependency remain, but current and future research suggests a role for CEUS in endoleak surveillance.

Abdominal aortic aneurysms: pre- and post-procedural imaging

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a relatively common, potentially life-threatening disorder. Rupture of AAA is potentially catastrophic with high mortality. Intervention for AAA is indicated when the aneurysm reaches 5.0-5.5 cm or more, when symptomatic, or when increasing in size > 10 mm/year. AAA can be accurately assessed by cross-sectional imaging including computed tomography angiography and magnetic resonance angiography. Current options for intervention in AAA patients include open surgery and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), with EVAR becoming more prevalent over time. Cross-sectional imaging plays a crucial role in AAA surveillance, pre-procedural assessment, and post-EVAR management. This paper will discuss the current role of imaging in the assessment of AAA patients prior to intervention, in evaluation of procedural complications, and in long-term follow-up of EVAR patients.

Ultrasonography for endoleak detection after endoluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

People with abdominal aortic aneurysm who receive endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) need lifetime surveillance to detect potential endoleaks. Endoleak is defined as persistent blood flow within the aneurysm sac following EVAR. Computed tomography (CT) angiography is considered the reference standard for endoleak surveillance. Colour duplex ultrasound (CDUS) and contrast-enhanced CDUS (CE-CDUS) are less invasive but considered less accurate than CT.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of colour duplex ultrasound (CDUS) and contrast-enhanced-colour duplex ultrasound (CE-CDUS) in terms of sensitivity and specificity for endoleak detection after endoluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, ISI Conference Proceedings, Zetoc, and trial registries in June 2016 without language restrictions and without use of filters to maximize sensitivity.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Any cross-sectional diagnostic study evaluating participants who received EVAR by both ultrasound (with or without contrast) and CT scan assessed at regular intervals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two pairs of review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality of included studies using the QUADAS 1 tool. A third review author resolved discrepancies. The unit of analysis was number of participants for the primary analysis and number of scans performed for the secondary analysis. We carried out a meta-analysis to estimate sensitivity and specificity of CDUS or CE-CDUS using a bivariate model. We analysed each index test separately. As potential sources of heterogeneity, we explored year of publication, characteristics of included participants (age and gender), direction of the study (retrospective, prospective), country of origin, number of CDUS operators, and ultrasound manufacturer.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 42 primary studies with 4220 participants. Twenty studies provided accuracy data based on the number of individual participants (seven of which provided data with and without the use of contrast). Sixteen of these studies evaluated the accuracy of CDUS. These studies were generally of moderate to low quality: only three studies fulfilled all the QUADAS items; in six (40%) of the studies, the delay between the tests was unclear or longer than four weeks; in eight (50%), the blinding of either the index test or the reference standard was not clearly reported or was not performed; and in two studies (12%), the interpretation of the reference standard was not clearly reported. Eleven studies evaluated the accuracy of CE-CDUS. These studies were of better quality than the CDUS studies: five (45%) studies fulfilled all the QUADAS items; four (36%) did not report clearly the blinding interpretation of the reference standard; and two (18%) did not clearly report the delay between the two tests.Based on the bivariate model, the summary estimates for CDUS were 0.82 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.91) for sensitivity and 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.96) for specificity whereas for CE-CDUS the estimates were 0.94 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.98) for sensitivity and 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.98) for specificity. Regression analysis showed that CE-CDUS was superior to CDUS in terms of sensitivity (LR Chi² = 5.08, 1 degree of freedom (df); P = 0.0242 for model improvement).Seven studies provided estimates before and after administration of contrast. Sensitivity before contrast was 0.67 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.83) and after contrast was 0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.99). The improvement in sensitivity with of contrast use was statistically significant (LR Chi² = 13.47, 1 df; P = 0.0002 for model improvement).Regression testing showed evidence of statistically significant effect bias related to year of publication and study quality within individual participants based CDUS studies. Sensitivity estimates were higher in the studies published before 2006 than the estimates obtained from studies published in 2006 or later (P < 0.001); and studies judged as low/unclear quality provided higher estimates in sensitivity. When regression testing was applied to the individual based CE-CDUS studies, none of the items, namely direction of the study design, quality, and age, were identified as a source of heterogeneity.Twenty-two studies provided accuracy data based on number of scans performed (of which four provided data with and without the use of contrast). Analysis of the studies that provided scan based data showed similar results. Summary estimates for CDUS (18 studies) showed 0.72 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.85) for sensitivity and 0.95 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.96) for specificity whereas summary estimates for CE-CDUS (eight studies) were 0.91 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.98) for sensitivity and 0.89 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.96) for specificity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that both ultrasound modalities (with or without contrast) showed high specificity. For ruling in endoleaks, CE-CDUS appears superior to CDUS. In an endoleak surveillance programme CE-CDUS can be introduced as a routine diagnostic modality followed by CT scan only when the ultrasound is positive to establish the type of endoleak and the subsequent therapeutic management.

Ultrasound fusion imaging with real-time navigation for the surveillance after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

Ultrasound can be an effective alternative to computed tomography for surveillance following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Recently, ultrasound fusion imaging with the real-time navigation system was introduced. Here we described 3 patients who underwent post-EVAR surveillance using this novel technique. Complete coregistration was achieved in all patients. The origin of left renal artery was selected for the target of coregistration. Ultrasound fusion imaging was useful to differentiate the confusing lesion and to evaluate the complete resolution of endoleak and newly developed delayed endoleak. Ultrasound fusion image with real-time navigation system can be a feasible imaging tool for post-EVAR surveillance.

[Quality standards for duplex ultrasonographic assessment (duplex us) of abdominal aortic stent grafts]

The quality standards of the French Society of Vascular Medicine for the ultrasound assessment of lower limb arteries in vascular medicine practice are based on the principle that these examinations have to meet two requirements: technical know-how (knowledge of devices and methodologies); medical know-how (level of examination matching the indication and purpose of the examination, interpretation and critical analysis of results).

OBJECTIVES OF THE QUALITY STANDARDS

To describe an optimal level of examination adjusted to the indication or clinical hypothesis; to establish harmonious practices, methodologies, terminologies, results description and report; to provide good practice reference points and to promote a high quality process.

THEMES OF THE QUALITY STANDARDS

The three levels of examination, indications and objectives for each level; the reference standard examination (level 2) and its variants according to indications; the minimal content of the exam report, the medical conclusion letter to the corresponding physician (synthesis, conclusion and management suggestions); commented glossary (anatomy, hemodynamics, signs and symptoms); technical basis; device settings. Here, we discuss duplex ultrasound for the supervision of the aortic stent grafts.

Imaging for surveillance and operative management for endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repairs rely heavily on radiologic imaging modalities for preoperative surveillance, intraoperative management, and postoperative follow-up. Ultrasonography, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and angiography all have utility at different stages of management. Often one imaging modality compliments another by providing supplementary information. Data from the imaging exams must be synthesized into one coherent plan for managing patients with aortic aneurysms.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm follow-up by shear wave elasticity imaging after endovascular repair in a canine model

OBJECTIVES

To investigate if shear wave imaging (SWI) can detect endoleaks and characterize thrombus organization in abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) after endovascular aneurysm repair.

METHODS

Stent grafts (SGs) were implanted in 18 dogs after surgical creation of type I endoleaks (four AAAs), type II endoleaks (13 AAAs) and no endoleaks (one AAA). Color flow Doppler ultrasonography (DUS) and SWI were performed before SG implantation (baseline), on days 7, 30 and 90 after SG implantation, and on the day of the sacrifice (day 180). Angiography, CT scans and macroscopic tissue sections obtained on day 180 were evaluated for the presence, size and type of endoleaks, and thrombi were characterized as fresh or organized. Endoleak areas in aneurysm sacs were identified on SWI by two readers and compared with their appearance on DUS, CT scans and macroscopic examination. Elasticity moduli were calculated in different regions (endoleaks, and fresh and organized thrombi).

RESULTS

All 17 endoleaks (100 %) were identified by reader 1, whereas 16 of 17 (94 %) were detected by reader 2. Elasticity moduli in endoleaks, and in areas of organized thrombi and fresh thrombi were 0.2 ± 0.4, 90.0 ± 48.2 and 13.6 ± 4.5 kPa, respectively (P < 0.001 between groups). SWI detected endoleaks while DUS (three endoleaks) and CT (one endoleak) did not.

CONCLUSIONS

SWI has the potential to detect endoleaks and evaluate thrombus organization based on the measurement of elasticity.

KEY POINTS

• SWI has the potential to detect endoleaks in post-EVAR follow-up. • SWI has the potential to characterize thrombus organization in post-EVAR follow-up. • SWI may be combined with DUS in post-EVAR surveillance of endoleak.

A Systematic Review of Ultrasound or Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared With Computed Tomography for Endoleak Detection and Aneurysm Diameter Measurement After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

To analyze the literature comparing ultrasound [duplex (DUS) or contrast-enhanced (CEUS)] or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with computed tomography angiography (CTA) for endoleak detection and aneurysm diameter measurement after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

A systematic review identified 31 studies that included 3853 EVAR patients who had paired scans (DUS or CEUS vs CTA or MRI vs CTA) within a 1-month interval for identification of endoleaks during EVAR surveillance. The primary outcome was the number of patients with an endoleak detected by one test but undetected by another test. Results are presented for all endoleaks and for types I and III endoleaks only. Aneurysm diameter measurements between CTA and ultrasound were examined using meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Endoleaks were seen in 25.6% (985/3853) of patients after EVAR. Fifteen studies compared DUS with CTA for the detection of all endoleak types. CTA had a significantly higher proportion of additional endoleaks detected (214/2346 vs 77/2346 for DUS). Of 19 studies comparing CEUS with CTA for the detection of all endoleak types, CEUS was more sensitive (138/1694) vs CTA (51/1694). MRI detected 42 additional endoleaks that were undetected by CTA during the paired scans, whereas CTA detected 2 additional endoleaks that MRI did not show. CTA had a similar proportion of additional types I and III endoleaks undetected by CEUS or MRI. Of 9 studies comparing ultrasound vs CTA for post-EVAR aneurysm diameter measurement, the aneurysm diameter measured by CTA was greater than ultrasound (mean difference -1.70 mm, 95% confidence interval -2.45 to -0.96, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that CEUS and MRI are more accurate than CTA for the detection of post-EVAR endoleaks, but they are no better than CTA for detecting types I and III endoleaks specifically. Aneurysm diameter differences between CTA and ultrasound should be considered when evaluating the change in aneurysm diameter postoperatively.

Follow-up of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: Preliminary validation of digital tomosynthesis and contrast enhanced ultrasound in detection of medium- to long-term complications

AIM: To validate the feasibility of digital tomosynthesis of the abdomen (DTA) combined with contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in assessing complications after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) by using computed tomography angiography (CTA) as the gold standard.

METHODS: For this prospective study we enrolled 163 patients (123 men; mean age, 65.7 years) referred for CTA for EVAR follow-up. CTA, DTA and CEUS were performed at 1 and 12 mo in all patients, with a maximum time interval of 2 d.

RESULTS: Among 163 patients 33 presented complications at CTA. DTA and CTA correlated for the presence of complications in 32/33 (96.96%) patients and for the absence of complications in 127/130 (97.69%) patients; the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy of DTA were 97%, 98%, 91%, 99%, and 98%, respectively. CEUS and CTA correlated for the presence of complications in 19/33 (57.57%) patients and for the absence of complications in 129/130 (99.23%) patients; the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy of CEUS were 58%, 99%, 95%, 90%, and 91%, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of combining DTA and CEUS together in detecting EVAR complications were 77%, 98% and 95%, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Combining DTA and CEUS in EVAR follow-up has the potential to limit the use of CTA only in doubtful cases.

Contemporary Applications of Ultrasound in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Management

Ultrasound (US) is a well-established screening tool for detection of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and is currently recommended not only for those with a relevant family history but also for all men and high-risk women older than 65 years of age. The advent of minimally invasive endovascular techniques in the treatment of AAAs [endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)] has increased the need for repeat imaging, especially in the postoperative period. Nevertheless, preoperative planning, intraoperative execution, and postoperative surveillance all mandate accurate imaging. While computed tomographic angiography and angiography have dominated the field, repeatedly exposing patients to the deleterious effects of cumulative radiation and intravenous nephrotoxic contrast, US technology has significantly evolved over the past decade. In addition to standard color duplex US, 2D, 3D, or 4D contrast-enhanced US modalities are revolutionizing AAA management and postoperative surveillance. This technology can accurately measure AAA diameter and volume, and most importantly, it can detect endoleaks post-EVAR with high sensitivity and specificity. 4D contrast-enhanced US can even provide hemodynamic information about the branch vessels following fenestrated EVARs. The need for experienced US operators and accredited vascular labs is mandatory to guarantee the reliability of the results. This review article presents a comprehensive overview of the literature on the state-of-art US imaging in AAA management, including post-EVAR follow-up, techniques, and diagnostic accuracy.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) versus computed tomography angiography (CTA) in detection of endoleaks in post-EVAR patients. Are delayed type II endoleaks being missed? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to computed tomography angiography (CTA) for the detection of endoleaks within EVAR surveillance program.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane database was performed. Articles assessing diagnostic accuracy and comparative modality (CTA vs. CEUS) for endoleaks in adult patients within surveillance programs were retrieved. Methodological assessment was performed, using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tools. The sensitivity and specificity of data were extracted and statistical analysis was performed using MetaDiSc version 1.4.

RESULTS

Eight articles were found eligible (n = 454 patients). The pooled sensitivity of CEUS at detecting endoleak is 0.914 (CI 0.866-0.949) and pooled specificity is 0.782 (CI 0.741-0.820).

CONCLUSION

The CEUS with its dynamic nature and longer scanning window demonstrated to be a highly sensitive modality for endoleak detection in comparison to CTA in delayed endoleaks type II.

Cumulative radiation dose and radiation risk from medical imaging in patients subjected to endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE

This study was undertaken to quantify the cumulative effective dose (CED) of radiation and the dose to relevant organs in endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) patients, to assess radiation risks and to evaluate the clinical usefulness of multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The radiation exposures were obtained from 71 consecutive EVAR patients with a follow-up duration ≥1 year. Dose calculations were performed on an individual basis and expressed as effective doses and organ doses. Radiation risk was expressed as risk of exposure-induced death (%), using the biological effects of ionising radiation model. Two radiologists independently assessed the images for abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion without endoleaks, thrombotic occlusion, endoleaks and device migration. They first reviewed arterial imaging alone and subsequently added non-contrast and delayed phases to determine the overall performance.

RESULTS

The median total CED and annual CED were 224 and 104 mSv per patient-year. The median cumulative organ doses were 191, 205, 230, 269 and 271 mSv for lung, bone marrow, liver, colon and stomach, respectively. The average risk of exposure-induced death was 0.8 % (i.e., odds 1 in 130). All the findings related to EVAR outcome and leading to a change in patient management were visible during the arterial phase of the MDCT angiography. Omission of the unenhanced scan and the venous phase of the MDCT angiography would have led to a significant reduction of about 60 % of the associated MDCT radiation exposure in a single patient.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR patients received high radiation doses and the excess cancer risk attributable to radiation exposure is not negligible. The unenhanced scan and the venous phase of the MDCT angiography could have been omitted without compromising the utility of the examination and with a significant reduction of doses and associated risks.

Urgent endovascular ligature of a ruptured splenic artery pseudoaneurysm in a patient with acute pancreatitis: a case report

Introduction

We report on the successful endovascular treatment of a ruptured splenic artery pseudoaneurysm. Our patient had acute pancreatitis superimposed on chronic calcific pancreatitis and chronic renal impairment. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography was used to assess post-embolization results.

Case presentation

Our patient was a 67-year-old white Caucasian man with recurrent pancreatitis. Computed tomography angiography showed a pancreatic pseudocyst with a ruptured pseudoaneurysm, which was successfully embolized using an endovascular percutaneous approach. At six months, persistent renal failure led to contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. This confirmed the absence of turbulent blood flow and extravasation of contrast medium in the pseudocyst.

Conclusion

Our experience with this case leads us to support the role of interventional radiology as a first-line treatment tool. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography can be used to follow-up embolization procedures in patients with impaired renal function.

Diagnosis and treatment of a patient with type IV endoleak as a late complication after endovascular aneurysm repair

Type IV endoleak is a very rare complication observed after implantation of aortobiiliac stent grafts. The difficult diagnosis of type IV endoleak leads to the application of many imaging methods in the diagnostic process. We present a case report of a patient who underwent implantation of an aortobiiliac stent graft in 2004. After surgery, the size of the aneurysm sac was monitored continually in the subsequent imaging studies. Progression of the aneurysm sac volume was detected in 2009. In a short period of time, the diameter of the aneurysm increased from 100 to 140 mm. Angio-computed tomography and angiography did not reveal the location of the endoleak. The attempt at localization and endovascular closure of the source of the endoleak failed. It was decided to treat the patient surgically. Intraoperatively, the source of the endoleak was visualized, and the endoleak was closed with surgical sutures.

Essentials of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair imaging: postprocedure surveillance and complications

OBJECTIVE

Lifelong postprocedural imaging surveillance is necessary after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) to assess for complications of endograft placement, as well as device failure and continued aneurysm growth. Refinement of the surveillance CT technique and development of ultrasound and MRI protocols are important to limit radiation exposure.

CONCLUSION

A comprehensive understanding of EVAR surveillance is necessary to identify life-threatening complications and to aid in secondary treatment planning.

Duplex Ultrasound versus Computed Tomography for the Postoperative Follow-Up of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Where Do We Stand Now?

In the last decade, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has rapidly developed to be the preferred method for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients with suitable anatomy. EVAR offers the advantage of lower perioperative mortality and morbidity but carries the cost of device-related complications such as endoleak, graft migration, graft thrombosis, and structural graft failure. These complications mandate a lifelong surveillance of EVAR patients and their endografts. The purpose of this study is to review and evaluate the safety of color-duplex ultrasound (CDU) as compared with computed tomography (CT), based on the current literature, for post-EVAR surveillance. The post-EVAR follow-up modalities, CDU versus CT, are evaluated questioning three parameters: (1) accuracy of aneurysm size, (2) detection and classification of endoleaks, and (3) detection of stent-graft deformation. Studies comparing CDU with CT scan for investigation of post-EVAR complications have produced mixed results. Further and long-term research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of CDU versus CT, before CDU can be recommended as the primary imaging modality for EVAR surveillance, in place of CT for stable aneurysms.

Vascular ultrasonography for follow-up of endovascular repair of abdominal aorta aneurysms

BackgroundThere is little information available on follow-up of abdominal aortic aneurysm patients treated with endovascular repair using vascular ultrasonography in Brazil or on how it compares with the results of angiotomography. Since ultrasonography is an examination that is risk-free, inexpensive and widely available, it is a very attractive method. In this study we attempted to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of vascular ultrasonography for follow-up of these patients by comparing the method with angiotomography.Materials and methodsWe conducted a prospective study from June 2012 to May 2013. We examined patients followed-up at the endovascular surgery clinic run by the University Hospital of Londrina after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. All patients underwent angiotomography for follow-up and were also examined using simple abdominal X-rays and vascular ultrasonography.ResultsA total of 30 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 73 years and a mean aneurysm diameter of 6 cm. Four endoleaks were detected. Vascular ultrasonography achieved sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 96% for classification of these endoleaks, in comparison with angiotomography.ConclusionsVascular ultrasonography is an excellent primary method for evaluation and post-surgical follow-up of patients treated with endovascular repair of abdominal aorta aneurysms. However, when ultrasonography detects problems or is difficult to accomplish, it should be supplemented with a more specific investigation for diagnostic confirmation.

Endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are usually treated with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), which has become the standard of care in many hospitals for patients with suitable anatomy. Clinical evidence indicates that EVAR is associated with superior perioperative outcomes and similar long-term survival compared with open repair. Since the randomized, controlled trials that provided this evidence were conducted, however, the stent graft technology for infrarenal AAA has been further developed. Improvements include profile downsizing, optimization of sealing and fixation, and the use of low porosity fabrics. In addition, imaging techniques have improved, enabling better preoperative planning, stent graft placement, and postoperative surveillance. Also in the past few years, fenestrated and branched stent grafts have increasingly been used to manage anatomically challenging aneurysms, and experiments with off-label use of stent grafts have been performed to treat patients deemed unfit or unsuitable for other treatment strategies. Overall, the indications for endovascular management of AAA are expanding to include increasingly complex and anatomically challenging aneurysms. Ongoing studies and optimization of imaging, in addition to technological refinement of stent grafts, will hopefully continue to broaden the utilization of EVAR.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of duplex ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography or computed tomography for surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Previous analyses suggested that duplex ultrasonography (DUS) detected endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with insufficient sensitivity; they did not specifically examine types 1 and 3 endoleak, which, if untreated, may lead to aneurysm-related death. In light of changes to clinical practice, the diagnostic accuracy of DUS and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for types 1 and 3 endoleak required focused reappraisal.

METHODS

Studies comparing DUS or CEUS with computed tomography (CT) for endoleak detection were identified. CT was taken as the standard in bivariable meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies (3975 paired scans) compared DUS with CT for all endoleaks. The pooled sensitivity was 0·74 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·62 to 0·83) and the pooled specificity was 0·94 (0·90 to 0·97). Thirteen studies (2650 paired scans) reported detection of types 1 and 3 endoleak by DUS; the pooled sensitivity of DUS was 0·83 (0·40 to 0·97) and the pooled specificity was 1·00 (0·97 to 1·00). Eleven studies (961 paired scans) compared CEUS with CT for all endoleaks. The pooled sensitivity of CEUS was 0·96 (0·85 to 0·99) and the pooled specificity was 0·85 (0·76 to 0·92). Eight studies (887 paired scans) reported detection of types 1 and 3 endoleak by CEUS. The pooled sensitivity of CEUS was 0·99 (0·25 to 1·00) and the pooled specificity was 1·00 (0·98 to 1·00).

CONCLUSION

Both CEUS and DUS were specific for detection of types 1 and 3 endoleak. Estimates of their sensitivity were uncertain but there was no evidence of a clinically important difference. DUS detects types 1 and 3 endoleak with sufficient accuracy for surveillance after EVAR.

Automated attenuation-based kilovoltage selection: preliminary observations in patients after endovascular aneurysm repair of the abdominal aorta

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to assess prospectively the impact of automated attenuation-based kilovoltage selection on image quality and radiation dose in patients undergoing body CT angiography (CTA) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) of the abdominal aorta.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Thirty-five patients (five women, 30 men; mean age ± SD, 69 ± 13 years; mean body mass index ± SD, 27.3 ± 4.5 kg/m(2)) underwent 64-MDCT angiography of the thoracoabdominal aorta using a fixed 120-kVp protocol (scan A: 120 mAs [reference]; rotation time, 0.33 second; pitch, 1.2) and, within a median time interval of 224 days, using a protocol with automated kilovoltage selection (scan B: tube voltage, 80-140 kVp). Subjective image quality (5-point scale: 1 [excellent] to 5 [nondiagnostic]) and objective image quality (aortic attenuation at four locations of the aortoiliac system, noise, contrast-to-noise ratio [CNR]) were assessed independently by two blinded radiologists. The volume CT dose index (CTDI(vol)) was compared between scans A and B.

RESULTS

The subjective image quality of scans A and B was similar (median score for both, 1; range, 1-4; p = 0.74), with all datasets being of diagnostic quality. Automated attenuation-based kilovoltage selection led to a reduction to 80 kVp in one patient (2.9%) and 100 kVp in 18 patients (51.4%). Fifteen of 35 patients (42.9%) were scanned at 120 kVp, whereas in one patient (2.9%) the kilovoltage setting increased to 140 kVp. Image noise (scan A vs scan B: mean ± SD, 12.8 ± 2.3 vs 13.7 ± 2.9 HU, respectively) was significantly (p < 0.05) higher in scan B than in scan A, whereas CNR was similar among scans (A vs B: mean ± SD, 15.7 ± 7.0 vs 16.9 ± 9.7; p = 0.43). The CTDI(vol) was significantly lower in scan B (mean ± SD, 8.9 ± 2.9 mGy; scan A, 10.6 ± 1.5 mGy; average reduction, 16%; p = 0.002) despite a higher tube current-exposure time product (B vs A: mean ± SD, 152 ± 27 vs 141 ± 29 mAs; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing follow-up after EVAR of the abdominal aorta, body CTA using automated attenuation-based kilovoltage selection yields similar subjective image quality and CNR at a significantly reduced dose compared with a protocol that uses 120 kVp.

Three-dimensional ultrasonography measurements after endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Ultrasonographic (US) assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms is typically performed by measuring maximal aneurysm diameter from two-dimensional images. These measurements are prone to inaccuracies owing to image planes and interobserver variability. The purpose of this study was to compare the variability in diameter, cross-sectional area (CSA), and volume measurements of abdominal aortic aneurysms obtained using a three-dimensional (3D) US imaging system with those obtained using computed tomographic (CT) angiography, and to determine the reliability of these measures.

METHODS

Seven patients in whom endovascular aneurysm repairs were performed underwent CT angiography in addition to a 3D US scan. Measurements computed using 3D surface reconstructions of CT and 3D US scans included maximum diameter, CSA, and aneurysm volume. The seven matched CT and 3D US scans were compared at baseline and 6 to 8 weeks later.

RESULTS

The average aneurysm measured 57.2 mm on CT and 56.2 mm on US (P = 0.14). Correlation coefficients for diameter, CSA, and volume were 0.88, 0.90, and 0.93, respectively (all P values < 0.001). A Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated a strong agreement between 92% of the diameter, 96.4% of the CSA, and 100% of the volume measurements. The interrater reliability was remarkably high comparing the modalities (CT vs. US), and ranged from 0.934 to 0.997 for single measurements and 0.965 to 0.998 for all measurements together; moreover, there was a strong reliability when the tests were reviewed 6 to 8 weeks later, with a reliability of 0.962 to 0.998 for single measurements and 0.992 to 0.999 for all tests (all P values < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The 3D US is an accurate and noninvasive method of determining aneurysm size and geometry that is reproducible. Volumetric measurements may represent a significant advancement in long-term follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair.

Single-centre prospective comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and computed tomography angiography after EVAR

AIM

To evaluate contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as an effective alternative to CT-angiography (CTA) for endoleak detection and aneurismal sac diameter measurement in the follow-up after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

From January 2006 to December 2010, 395 patients underwent EVAR follow-up with both CTA and CEUS. The diameter of the aneurismal sac and the presence of endoleaks were evaluated in all the 395 paired examinations.

RESULTS

Bland-Altman plots showed a good agreement in aneurismal sac diameter evaluation between the two imaging modalities. The mean diameter was 54.93 mm (standard deviation (SD) ±12.57) with CEUS and 56.01 mm (SD ± 13.23) with CTA. The mean difference in aneurismal sac diameter was -1.08 mm ± 3.3543 (95% confidence interval (CI), -0.75 to -1.41), in favour of CTA. The number of observed agreement in endoleak detection was 359/395 (90.89%). The two modalities detected the same type I and type III endoleaks. McNemar's χ(2) test confirmed that CTA and CEUS are equivalent in endoleak detection.

CONCLUSIONS

CEUS demonstrated to be as accurate as CTA in endoleak detection and abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements during EVAR follow-up, without carrying the risks of radiation exposure or nephrotoxicity. Even if it cannot be proposed as the sole imaging modality during follow-up, our analysis suggests that it should have a major role.

Surveillance of a coiled renal artery aneurysm by contrast-enhanced ultrasound with Definity

Imaging surveillance is necessary to assess for long-term procedural outcomes after endovascular treatment. This is generally performed by computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has recognized utility for cardiovascular and abdominal applications and is an alternative option in patients with renal impairment or CT/MR contrast-related reactions. We believe that we present the first reported case of CEUS in the surveillance of a treated renal artery aneurysm. The 57-year-old patient had a severe CT contrast allergy. CEUS performed with Definity microbubble ultrasound contrast (Lantheus Medical Imaging, Billerica, Mass) was well tolerated and showed no residual filling of the aneurysm.