Quantification of iliac artery stenoses: a methodological comparative study between intravascular ultrasound, arteriography and duplex scanning

Adjunctive Utilization of Intravascular Ultrasound in Peripheral Arterial Disease Treatment

BACKGROUND

The utility and benefit of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been well established in coronary interventions, however widespread adoption for peripheral interventions has lagged. The objectives of this review article were to discuss the technical components of IVUS, describe key learning pearls for IVUS utilization, and review the literature describing the clinical outcomes of endovascular peripheral arterial interventions using IVUS.

METHODS

A scoping review of the current literature utilizing Pubmed. Terms used to search the literature included "intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)" in conjunction with "peripheral arterial disease (PAD)," "endovascular interventions," "chronic limb threatening ischemia," "balloon angioplasty" "stenting," "percutaneous coronary intervention," and "outcomes." All types of articles were reviewed including review articles, retrospective reviews, meta-analyses, and prospective observational and randomized studies.

RESULTS

Published literature regarding IVUS use in peripheral arterial interventions is heterogeneous and limited to mainly retrospective studies, registry analyses and metanalyses. Outcomes are generally favorable with the adjunct of IVUS compared to traditional angiography-driven peripheral interventions. The addition of IVUS improves stent expansion, stent patency, and reduces reintervention rates, particularly in infrainguinal arterial lesions. Long-term costs may also be lower with IVUS-guided procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert consensus largely supports the implementation of IVUS in endovascular interventions for peripheral arterial disease. However, more robust high-quality data evaluating the efficacy, durability, and cost of IVUS in peripheral arterial disease are still needed.

Intravascular Ultrasound Use in Peripheral Arterial and Deep Venous Interventions: Multidisciplinary Expert Opinion From SCAI/AVF/AVLS/SIR/SVM/SVS

Percutaneous revascularization is the primary strategy for treating lower extremity venous and arterial disease. Angiography is limited by its ability to accurately size vessels, precisely determine the degree of stenosis and length of lesions, characterize lesion morphology, or correctly diagnose postintervention complications. These limitations are overcome with use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). IVUS has demonstrated the ability to improve outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention, and there is increasing evidence to support its benefits in the setting of peripheral vascular intervention. At this stage in its evolution, there remains a need to standardize the use and approach to peripheral vascular IVUS imaging. This manuscript represents considerations and consensus perspectives that emerged from a roundtable discussion including 15 physicians with expertise in interventional cardiology, interventional radiology, and vascular surgery, representing 6 cardiovascular specialty societies, held on February 3, 2023. The roundtable's aims were to assess the current state of lower extremity revascularization, identify knowledge gaps and need for evidence, and determine how IVUS can improve care and outcomes for patients with peripheral arterial and deep venous pathology.

Appropriate Use of Intravascular Ultrasound During Arterial and Venous Lower Extremity Interventions

BACKGROUND

There has been growing use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during lower extremity arterial and venous revascularization. Observational data suggest that the use of IVUS can improve periprocedural and long-term outcomes, but largescale prospective data remain limited. Consensus opinion regarding the appropriate use of IVUS during peripheral intervention is needed.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this consensus document is to provide guidance on the appropriate use of IVUS in various phases of peripheral arterial and venous interventions.

METHODS

A 12-member writing committee was convened to derive consensus regarding the appropriate clinical scenarios for use of peripheral IVUS. The group iteratively created a 72-question survey representing 12 lower extremity arterial interventional scenarios. Separately, a 40-question survey representing 8 iliofemoral venous interventional scenarios was constructed. Clinical scenarios were categorized by interventional phases: preintervention, intraprocedure, and postintervention optimization. Thirty international vascular experts (15 for each survey) anonymously completed the survey instrument. Results were categorized by appropriateness using the median value and disseminated to the voting panel to reevaluate for any disagreement.

RESULTS

Consensus opinion concluded that IVUS use may be appropriate during the preintervention phase for evaluating the etiology of vessel occlusion and plaque morphology in the iliac and femoropopliteal arteries. IVUS was otherwise rated as appropriate during iliac and femoropopliteal revascularization in most other preintervention scenarios, as well as intraprocedural and postprocedural optimization phases. IVUS was rated appropriate in all interventional phases for the tibial arteries. For iliofemoral venous interventions, IVUS was rated as appropriate in all interventional phases.

CONCLUSIONS

Expert consensus can help define clinical procedural scenarios in which peripheral IVUS may have value during lower extremity arterial and venous intervention while additional prospective data are collected.

Intravascular ultrasound in peripheral venous and arterial interventions: A contemporary systematic review and grading of the quality of evidence

Although angiography has been the primary imaging modality used in peripheral vascular intervention, this technique has major limitations due to the evaluation of three-dimensional vessels in two dimensions. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) is an important adjunctive tool that can address some of these limitations. This systematic review assesses the appropriateness of IVUS as an imaging modality for guiding peripheral intervention through evidence collection and clinical appraisal of studies. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a cohort of 48 studies (29 arterial; 19 venous) detailing IVUS use in peripheral vascular intervention were extracted. Qualitative assessment of the studies evaluated pre- and postprocedure efficacy of IVUS and revealed that IVUS-guided peripheral intervention in arterial and venous diagnosis and treatment was superior to other imaging techniques alone. Each study in the cohort was further assessed for reliability and validity using the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine (CEBM) level of evidence scale. The majority of both arterial (79.3%) and venous (73.7%) studies received a 2b rating, the second highest level of evidence rating. The evidence to date indicates that IVUS results in better clinical outcomes overall and should be more widely adopted as an adjunctive imaging modality during peripheral intervention. (PROSPERO Registration No.: CRD42021232353).

Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Proximal Venous Outflow Obstruction

BACKGROUND

Proximal venous outflow obstruction (PVOO) in the abdomen and pelvis is increasingly recognized as an important contributor to venous disease of the lower extremity. There are currently no guidelines regarding a noninvasive screening tool for PVOO, although magnetic resonance venography (MRV) is commonly used in many practices. The objective of this study was to determine the value and utility of MRV in diagnosis and screening for PVOO.

METHODS

This retrospective study consisted of 46 consecutive patients, all of whom presented with signs and/or symptoms of PVOO and were evaluated with MRV followed by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and venography. Of these 46 patients suspected to have PVOO based on clinical evaluation, 24 patients had PVOO confirmed with IVUS and venography and PVOO was not observed on IVUS and venography in the remaining 22 patients. The MRV of these 46 patients was retrospectively reviewed in a blinded fashion and then correlated with IVUS and venography by 1 vascular surgeon. A scoring system was developed to define the types of radiography findings that were observed: normal, suspicious, and abnormal.

RESULTS

When compared with IVUS and multiplane venography, the interpretation of MRV had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 22.7%. The positive predictive value of MRV was 58.5%, and the negative predictive value was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

The high sensitivity (100%) and low specificity (22.7%) of MRV suggest that it can be a screening tool at best, used only to rule out PVOO; it cannot be used to confirm PVOO, given its a 41.5% false positive rate. Thus, the development of a different, noninvasive diagnostic test that can more accurately assess patients with suspected PVOO during the initial evaluation of their lower-extremity venous disease should be explored.

The clinical importance and prediction of steal following femoro-femoral cross-over bypass: study of the donor iliac artery by intravascular ultrasound, arteriography, duplex scanning and pressure measurements

OBJECTIVES

to evaluate the clinical significance of the steal phenomenon following femoro-femoral bypass, and whether the addition of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) to the established examinations of the donor iliac artery can improve the prediction of patients who will develop steal.

DESIGN

prospective study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

twenty-eight patients, aged 73 (50-81) years, scheduled for femoro-femoral bypass surgery in the period from 1994 to 1997, had the donor iliac artery examined by single-plane arteriography, duplex scanning, IVUS and femoral-artery blood pressure measurements (FABP)+/-papaverine. Three patients were excluded due to simultaneous thromboendarterectomy (TEA) of the donor iliac artery. The clinical stage and the ankle-brachial index (ABPI) were measured pre-, postoperatively and prospectively 1, 6, 12 and 24 months after discharge.

RESULTS

two patients developed clinical steal, while an additional five had a measurable (>0.1) decline in the donor ABPI postoperatively, but no symptoms (subclinical steal). The clinical stage of the donor limb did not deteriorate further during the follow-up period (median 8 months) in these seven patients. The decline in donor ABPI correlated with the FABP and the IVUS measurements, but not to duplex scanning or arteriography. FABP after papaverine injection and IVUS examination showed equal sensitivities and and specificities.

CONCLUSION

a clinical steal phenomenon following femoro-femoral bypass surgery seems relatively uncommon, although a subclinical steal is more frequent. Both can be predicted by FABP or IVUS. Further follow-up is required to evaluate whether subclinical steal has any consequences in the long term.