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.

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.

Review of postoperative CT and ultrasound for endovascular aneurysm repair using Talent stent graft: can we simplify the surveillance protocol and reduce the number of CT scans?

BACKGROUND

Simplifying a postoperative surveillance protocol for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) requires quality control comparing computerized tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) results of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter measurements and endoleaks.

PURPOSE

To test if US is comparable to CT, then assess a simplified follow-up with our conventional surveillance to assess patient safety.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

During 2001-2006, data on 56 patients treated with Talent stent graft were prospectively registered. Median follow-up was 41.5 months (range, 2-94 months), with CT, US, and plain film abdomen X-rays (PFA) at 1, 6, and 12 months, then yearly. Bland-Altman plot was used to assess the agreement between CT and US measuring the AAA diameters and mixed model by the time effect to assess the difference in diameter over time. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of endoleaks by US, with CT as 'gold standard' were calculated. A simplified surveillance protocol with US/PFA at 6 and 8 weeks, CT/US/PFA at 1 year, and yearly US/PFA thereafter, was evaluated. CT was carried out when poor visibility, endoleak detected, AAA diameter increase (≥5 mm) on US or migration (≥10 mm) on PFA. This regime was compared with our conventional follow-up protocol.

RESULTS

Diameter measurements on US appear comparable to CT with 91% specificity and 85% sensitivity for endoleaks detected by US. Using the simplified surveillance protocol no endoleaks, migrations, or endotension requiring treatment were overlooked. The simplified protocol generated 53 selective CT scans, avoiding approximately 144 CT scans. If further simplified by omitting the 1-year CT scan, one type II endoleak would be missed with a 1-year delay, eliminating a further 45 CT scans.

CONCLUSION

US appears comparable to CT in the follow-up of Talent stent grafts in our institution. The proposed simplified surveillance protocol seems safe and can lead to a significant reduction in the number of CT scans.

Duplex ultrasound evaluation of endoluminally treated aortic aneurysms with emphasis on diameter measurement: A comparison with computed tomography

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of color Doppler ultrasound (CDUS) for endoleak detection and measurement of the aneurysm diameter after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.

METHODS

Forty-eight CDUS and computed tomographic angiography (CTA) examinations performed concurrently on 29 patients who were treated with endovascular stent grafts for abdominal aortic aneurysms were included in the study. CTA and CDUS findings were retrospectively compared for aneurysm diameter, patency of the graft, and the presence of leaks in the aneurysm's lumen (the so-called "endoleaks").

RESULTS

The stent graft was patent in all patients. Including the follow-up examinations, endoleaks were detected in a total of 17 CTA studies. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for CDUS compared with CTA as the gold standard were 100%, 96%, 94.4%, and 100%, respectively. Kappa statistics showed a high level of agreement between CDUS ant CTA examinations (χ = 0.95). The aneurysm diameters measured with CDUS and CTA were significantly different, but within 5 mm of each other in 83% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Provided that a strict CDUS protocol including spectral analysis of perigraft flow is used, CDUS is comparable to CTA for endoleak detection and measurement of the aneurysm diameter.

The impact of radiation dose exposure during endovascular aneurysm repair on patient safety

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) exposes patients to radiation during the procedure and in subsequent follow-up. The study goal was to calculate the radiation dose in our unit and compare it against other published data and national guidelines.

METHODS

All EVAR procedures were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Radiation dose, screening time, and volume of intravenous contrast during the procedure were reviewed. Radiation exposure from subsequent computed tomography (CT) imaging was included in the overall exposure. Results are expressed as mean +/- standard deviation.

RESULTS

From October 1998 to October 2008, 320 elective patients underwent EVAR. Mean screening time was 29.4 +/- 23.3 minutes, and the radiation dose was 11.7 +/- 7.1 mSv. The EVAR was an emergency in 64 patients. The mean screening time was 22.9 +/- 18.2 minutes, and the radiation dose was 13.4 +/- 8.6 mSv. During the first postoperative year, follow-up CT scans exposed the patients to 24.0 mSv, with 8.0 mSv in subsequent years. Abdominal radiographs added an additional 1.8 mSv each year.

CONCLUSION

EVAR and the follow-up investigations involve substantial amounts of radiation, with well-recognized carcinogenic risks. Because patient safety is paramount, radiation exposure should be minimized. This may be possible by standardizing radiation exposure throughout the United Kingdom by implementing national guidelines and considering other imaging modalities for follow-up.