Computed Tomography-Aortography Versus Color-Duplex Ultrasound for Surveillance of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Detection of Endoleak after Endovascular Aortic Repair through Deep Learning Based on Non-contrast CT

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a deep learning model for detecting post-endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) endoleak from non-contrast CT.

METHODS

This retrospective study involved 245 patients who underwent EVAR between September 2016 and December 2022. All patients underwent both non-enhanced and enhanced follow-up CT. The presence of endoleak was evaluated based on computed tomography angiography (CTA) and radiology reports. First, the aneurysm sac was segmented, and radiomic features were extracted on non-contrast CT. Statistical analysis was conducted to investigate differences in shape and density characteristics between aneurysm sacs with and without endoleak. Subsequently, a deep learning model was trained to generate predicted segmentation of the endoleak. A binary decision was made based on whether the model produced a segmentation to detect the presence of endoleak. The absence of a predicted segmentation indicated no endoleak, while the presence of a predicted segmentation indicated endoleak. Finally, the performance of the model was evaluated by comparing the predicted segmentation with the reference segmentation obtained from CTA. Model performance was assessed using metrics such as dice similarity coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC).

RESULTS

This study finally included 85 patients with endoleak and 82 patients without endoleak. Compared to patients without endoleak, patients with endoleak had higher CT values and greater dispersion. The AUC in validation group was 0.951, dice similarity coefficient was 0.814, sensitivity was 0.877, and specificity was 0.884.

CONCLUSION

This deep learning model based on non-contrast CT can detect endoleak after EVAR with high sensitivity.

The sac evolution imaging follow-up after endovascular aortic repair: An international expert opinion-based Delphi consensus study

OBJECTIVE

Management of follow-up protocols after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) varies significantly between centers and is not standardized according to sac regression. By designing an international expert-based Delphi consensus, the study aimed to create recommendations on follow-up after EVAR according to sac evolution.

METHODS

Eight facilitators created appropriate statements regarding the study topic that were voted, using a 4-point Likert scale, by a selected panel of international experts using a three-round modified Delphi consensus process. Based on the experts' responses, only those statements reaching a grade A (full agreement ≥75%) or B (overall agreement ≥80% and full disagreement <5%) were included in the final document.

RESULTS

One-hundred and seventy-four participants were included in the final analysis, and each voted the initial 29 statements related to the definition of sac regression (Q1-Q9), EVAR follow-up (Q10-Q14), and the assessment and role of sac regression during follow-up (Q15-Q29). At the end of the process, 2 statements (6.9%) were rejected, 9 statements (31%) received a grade B consensus strength, and 18 (62.1%) reached a grade A consensus strength. Of 27 final statements, 15 (55.6%) were classified as grade I, whereas 12 (44.4%) were classified as grade II. Experts agreed that sac regression should be considered an important indicator of EVAR success and always be assessed during follow-up after EVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the elevated strength and high consistency of this international expert-based Delphi consensus, most of the statements might guide the current clinical management of follow-up after EVAR according to the sac regression. Future studies are needed to clarify debated issues.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Improved Detection of Endoleaks in Virtual Monoenergetic Images in Dual-Energy CT Angiography Following EVAR

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this prospective study was to evaluate the virtual monoenergetic images (VMI) and virtual noncontrast (VNC) phase in the detection of endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic repair (EVAR). The potential dose reduction of abbreviated examination protocols was calculated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-seven patients after the EVAR procedure were enrolled in this study. An initial single-source noncontrast acquisition was followed by two dual-energy acquisitions (arterial and 60 s delayed). Fast-kVp switching scanner was used. VNC images were reconstructed from the delayed phase. First examination session (reference) included a full triphasic study protocol consisting of true noncontrast (TNC) images and two postcontrast phases, the latter ones presented as classical polyenergetic reconstructions. Reading sessions II and III were performed by two independent and blinded readers evaluating VMIs in abbreviated protocols-biphasic (VNC + arterial, delayed phase), monophasic (VNC + delayed phase). The diagnostic accuracy of sessions II and III was calculated.

RESULTS

The calculated sensitivity of the biphasic protocol with the use of VMIs in endoleak detection was 100%, with a statistically significant increase in the number of endoleaks detected in comparison with the reference study. The monophasic protocol showed 83.33% sensitivity. The use of abbreviated examination protocols led to a decrease in the mean effective dose (ED) of 23.28% (biphasic protocol) and 61.37% (monophasic protocol).

CONCLUSION

The use of VMIs increases the number of endoleaks diagnosed with a possible radiation reduction by up to ¼ (biphasic protocol). Further reduction to a monophasic protocol leads to over 60% dose reduction but with a decrease in diagnostic accuracy.

Editor's Choice - Comparison of the Reproducibility of Ultrasound Calliper Placement Methods in Abdominal Aortic Diameter Measurements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies

OBJECTIVE

To assess which ultrasound (US) method of maximum anteroposterior (AP) abdominal aortic diameter measurement can be considered most reproducible.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched (PROSPERO ID: 276694). Eligible studies reported intra- and or interobserver agreement according to Bland-Altman analysis (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) for abdominal aortic diameter AP US evaluations with an outer to outer (OTO), inner to inner (ITI), and or leading edge to leading edge (LELE) calliper placement.

REVIEW METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies statement was followed. The QUADAS-2 tool and QUADAS-C extension were used for risk of bias assessment and the GRADE framework to rate the certainty of evidence. Pooled estimates (fixed effects meta-analysis, after a test of homogeneity of means) for each US method were compared with pairwise one sided t tests. Sensitivity analyses (for studies published in 2010 or later) and meta-regression were also performed.

RESULTS

21 studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Twelve were eligible for quantitative analysis. Studies showed heterogeneity in the US model and transducer used, sex of participants, and observer professions, expertise, and training. Included studies shared a common mean for each US method (OTO: p = 1.0, ITI: p = 1.0, and LELE: p = 1.0). A pooled estimate of interobserver reproducibility for each US method was obtained, combining the mean ± SD (Bland-Altman analysis) from each study: OTO: 0.182 ± 0.440; ITI: 0.170 ± 0.554; and LELE: 0.437 ± 0.419. There were no statistically significant differences between the methods (OTO vs. ITI: p = .52, OTO vs. LELE: p = .069, ITI vs. LELE: p = .17). Considering studies published in 2010 and later, the pooled estimate for LELE was the smallest, without statistically significant differences between the methods. Despite the low risk of bias, the certainty of the evidence for both meta-analysed outcomes remained low.

CONCLUSION

The interobserver reproducibility for OTO and ITI was 2.5 times smaller (indicating better reproducibility) than LELE; however, without statistically significant differences between the methods and low GRADE evidence certainty. Additional data are needed to validate these findings, while inherent differences between the methods need to be emphasised.

Influence of Home Location on Follow-Up Compliance after Endovascular Treatment for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

BACKGROUND

The complications of EVAR require compliance to a close follow-up imaging. The purpose of this study was to determine whether home location predicted a poor compliance to imaging follow-up after EVAR.

METHODS

We analyzed a cohort of patients treated by EVAR at the Besançon University Hospital between 2007 and 2017. Follow-up imaging followed the French High Health Authority recommendations. Noncompliance with follow-up compliance was defined as a first missed postoperative appointment or 2 consecutive missed appointments after the first control CT-scan, and 2 groups of patients were identified: compliant (group C) or noncompliant (group NC). Univariate and multivariate analyzes were used to investigate compliance risk factors. Collected complications included endoleaks, limb thrombosis, infections, and secondary ruptures.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-eight of the 359 patients treated during this period were enrolled, including 233 men (90.3%), with a mean age of 74.0 years (±9.0) and a mean follow-up of 5.0 years (±2.6). The compliance rate was 38.8% and the 1-year mortality rate was 12.0%. Using univariate and multivariate analysis, a place of residence greater located over 60 min away from the hospital had a poor effect on compliance (Odd ratio [OR] = 0.58; P = 0.047). Peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAD) and an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter greater than 5.0 cm were protective factors (OR = 2.23; P = 0.006 and OR = 1.85, respectively; P = 0.002). Four-year all-cause mortality was 21.0% in group C and 17.0% in the NC group (P = 0.54). Complications were more significant in group C (59.0%) compared to group NC (39.0%) (P = 0.001). Two ruptures occurred in the NC group (1.3%), versus none in the C group (P = 0.25).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, a long distance from the home to the hospital was a detrimental factor for follow up compliance. However, a good compliance did not decrease the 4-year mortality rate. The high rate of noncompliance found should lead to a more personalized follow-up strategy taking into account the anatomical elements but also the comorbidities and some social aspects.

Safety of Utilizing Ultrasound as the Sole Modality of Follow-Up after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Post endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), surveillance with computed tomography-aortography (CTA) remains the most common practice, per Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines. Chronic exposure to both radiation and intravenous (IV) contrast has raised concerns about long-term CTA follow-up (FU). As we have selectively used ultrasound (US) as a sole modality for post-EVAR surveillance, we sought to review our outcomes in this subset of patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of our institution's vascular database identified 213 EVAR patients from 2013 to 2021. Fenestrated-EVAR and snorkel reconstructions were excluded. Patient demographics/outcomes, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) characteristics, and FU modalities and outcomes were analyzed. Unpaired Student's t-test, ANOVA, and chi-squared test were used to assess group differences.

RESULTS

Eighty-five of the 213 EVAR patients (39.9%) were lost to FU within 3 months. Among the 128 remaining patients, 91 underwent FU using initial US, while 37 patients underwent post-EVAR FU initially using CTA. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between patient age (75.5 ± 9.4 vs. 75.3 ± 8.5), body mass index (BMI) (27.7 ± 5.4 vs. 28.9 ± 7.4), or mean AAA size (5.6 ± 1.1 vs. 5.9 ± 1.2) in US-surveilled and computed tomography (CT)-surveilled groups, respectively. Of the 91 patients, initially surveilled with US, 15 patients demonstrated endoleak and/or AAA growth (>5 mm). The 15 patients with US-demonstrated endoleak and/or growth underwent confirmatory CTA, with 3 patients eventually requiring EVAR revision. Among 37 patients initially surveilled with CT, 10 demonstrated significant growth and 2 patients eventually required EVAR revision. There were no patients with AAA rupture during post-EVAR surveillance. FU data were analyzed among a select lower-risk group of patients (preoperative AAA diameter ≤5.5 cm, BMI ≤30, and no endoleak at completion of EVAR). Among this group, there were no surveilled patients who required EVAR reintervention, regardless of surveillance modality (US n = 32; CT n = 4). The average FU was 29.5 ± 26.4 months in the US group and 26.4 ± 22.3 months in the CT group (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although initial CT surveillance following EVAR remains ideal, in select lower-risk patients, US is a viable alternative even for the initial post-procedure study. Advantages include decreased radiation exposure and cost. Our data suggest that US is a safe sole modality for surveillance following EVAR in selective patients.

Role of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Follow-Up after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Background: The aim of this study was to assess whether contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) shows a false negative rate close to zero and therefore is suitable as the main non-invasive follow-up strategy for long-term monitoring after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Methods: We included all consecutive patients who underwent CEUS as follow-up after EVAR at our center between January 2017 and December 2021.The follow-up protocol consisted of Duplex ultrasound (DUS) with CEUS at 1, 3, 6 months postoperatively and every 6 months thereafter. Results: A total of 125 patients underwent 228 CEUS. The aneurysm sac showed shrinkage in 80 (64%) patients, stability in 32 (25.6%), and enlargement in 13 (10.4%). A total of 29 (23.2%) patients showed type 2 endoleak, 6 (4.8%) patients showed type 1 endoleak and 3 (2.4%) patients showed type 3 endoleak. Thirteen patients underwent one or more reinterventions. The sensitivity of CEUS vs. DUS was 100% vs. 75% (p > 0.0001). In classifying type 2 endoleak, CEUS compared to DUS showed a sensitivity of 93.2% vs. 59.4% and a specificity of 99.3% vs. 99.3%. CEUS showed a higher sensitivity compared to DUS in the detection of type 2 endoleak. CEUS permits the identification of a subset of patients requiring a stricter follow-up protocol.

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.

Color Doppler ultrasound for surveillance following EVAR as the primary tool

OBJECTIVE

As aneurysm-related events and rupture is not eliminated, postoperative lifelong surveillance is mandatory after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). For surveillance colored Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) is a standard method of noninvasive evaluation having the advantages of availability, cost-effectiveness, and lack of nephrotoxicity and radiation. We evaluated CDUS for primary surveillance tool after elective EVAR by comparing with computerized tomography.

METHODS

Between January 2018 and March 2020, 84 consecutive post-EVAR patients were evaluated. First, CDUS was performed by two Doppler operators from the Radiology Department and then computed tomographic angiography (CTA) was performed. The operators were blind to CTA reports. A reporting protocol was organized for endoleak detection and largest aneurysm diameter.

RESULTS

Among 84 patients, there were 11 detected endoleaks (13.1%) with CTA and seven of them was detected with CDUS (r = .884, p < .001). All Type I and III endoleaks were detected perfectly. There is an insufficiency in detecting low flow by CDUS. Eliminating this frailty, there was a strong correlation of aneurysm sac diameter measurement between CTA and CDUS (r = .777, p < .001). The sensitivity and specificity of CDUS was 63.6% and 100%, respectively. The accuracy was 95.2%. Positive and negative predictive values were 100% and 94.8%. Bland-Altman analysis and linear regression analysis showed no proportional bias (mean difference of 1.5 ± 2.2 mm, p = .233).

CONCLUSIONS

For surveillance, CDUS promises accurate results without missing any potential complication requiring intervention as Type I or III endoleak. Lack of detecting Type II endoleaks may be negligible as sac enlargement was the key for reintervention in this situation and CDUS has a remarkably high correlation with CTA in sac diameter measurement. CDUS may be a primary surveillance tool for EVAR and CTA will be reserved in case of aneurysm sac enlargement, detection of an endoleak, inadequate CDUS, or in case of unexplained abdominal symptomatology. By this way we not only avoid ionizing radiation and nephrotoxic agents, but also achieve cost saving issue also.