Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging for aortic stent-graft surveillance

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.

Ultrasound Imaging of the Abdominal Aorta: A Comprehensive Review

Ultrasound is the imaging modality of choice for the initial evaluation of disorders that involve the abdominal aorta (AA). The diagnostic value of ultrasound resides in its ability to allow assessment of the anatomy and structure of the AA using two- dimensional, three-dimensional, and contrast-enhanced imaging. Moreover, ultrasound permits evaluation of the physiologic and hemodynamic consequences of abnormalities through Doppler interrogation of blood flow, thus enabling the identification and quantification of disorders within the AA and beyond its boundaries. The approach to ultrasound imaging of the AA varies, depending on the purpose of the study and whether it is performed in a radiology or vascular laboratory or in an echocardiography laboratory. The aim of this review is to demonstrate the usefulness of ultrasound imaging for the detection and evaluation of disorders that involve the AA, detail the abnormalities that are detected or further assessed, and outline its value for echocardiographers, sonographers, and radiologists.

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.

Usefulness of Abdominal Duplex Ultrasound for Detecting Endoleaks after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Objective: The usefulness of abdominal duplex ultrasound (DUS) for the detection of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) was evaluated. Materials and Methods: Among 286 patients who underwent EVAR between September 2007 and July 2017, 241 patients were followed up using abdominal DUS. Endoleaks were detected in 74 patients (31%), who were divided into enlarged and nonenlarged sac groups. Endoleak velocities and widths were measured using abdominal DUS every 6 months after EVAR and were compared between the 2 groups. Results: The aneurysm diameter in the nonenlarged sac group was 54.4±8.7 mm in the final follow-up. None of the patients in the nonenlarged sac group were subjected to reintervention, whereas all patients in the enlarged sac group were subjected to reintervention. The aneurysm diameter in the enlarged sac group was 62.8±8.8 mm at the time of reintervention, and the maximum endoleak flow velocities and endoleak widths were significantly higher in the enlarged sac group than in the nonenlarged sac group (p<0.05). The cutoff values on receiver operating characteristics curves for endoleak velocity and width were 83.4 cm/s and 4.0 mm, respectively. Conclusion: Follow-ups using abdominal DUS are useful after EVAR. Endoleak velocity and width measurements are important, and reintervention may be needed when these measurements exceed their cutoff values.

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.

Multimodality imaging assessment of endoleaks post-endovascular aortic repair

Endoleaks are a common complication of endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). As a result, patients require lifelong imaging surveillance following EVAR. In current clinical practice, evaluation for endoleaks is predominantly performed with CT angiography (CTA). Due to the significant cumulative radiation burden associated with repetitive CTA imaging, as well as the repeated administration of nephrotoxic contrast agent, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) have evolved as potential modalities for lifelong surveillance post-EVAR. In this paper, multimodality imaging, including CTA, CEUS and MRA, for the surveillance of endoleaks is discussed. Further, new CTA techniques for radiation reduction are elaborated. Additionally, imagery for three cases of aortic endoleak detection using CTA and five cases using MRA are presented. Imaging for different types of endoleaks with CTA, MRA and CEUS are presented. For lifelong endoleak surveillance post-EVAR, CTA is still regarded as the imaging modality of choice. However, advancements in CEUS and MRA technique enable partial replacement of CTA in certain patients.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) of the abdominal vasculature

Vascular diseases account for a significant proportion of abdominal pathology and represent a common referral source for abdominal ultrasonographic examinations. B-mode, color Doppler, and spectral Doppler analyses are well-established in the evaluation of abdominal blood vessels although they may occasionally be limited by lower sensitivity for slow flow visualization or the deeper location of abdominal vascular structures. The introduction of microbubbles as ultrasonographic contrast agents has rendered contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), a valuable complementary ultrasonographic technique, which is capable of addressing clinically significant problems and guiding patient management. The purpose of this pictorial review is to analyze the use of CEUS in the evaluation of abdominal vascular pathology and illustrate such applications by presenting representative images. Pathology discussed includes abdominal aortic aneurysm, post-endovascular treatment aorta, portal vein thrombosis, abdominal vascular trauma, and organ transplantation along with its complications.

Evolving clinical applications of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the abdominal aorta

Ultrasound (US) represents the initial modality in the workup of abdominal aortic pathology based on the plethora of advantages including widespread availability, low cost, safety profile and repeatability. However, US has inherent limitations including limited spatial information of pathologic processes to neighboring structures, lower sensitivity to slow blood flow and aortic luminal irregularities. For evaluation of aortic pathology angiography has long been considered the gold standard. Non-invasive cross-sectional imaging techniques like computed tomography angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) have gradually replaced interventional angiography for the evaluation of aorta, currently being regarded as the diagnostic imaging modalities of choice for diagnosis of virtually every aortic disease. Interventional angiography is currently primarily performed for treatment purposes of aortic pathology. The introduction of microbubbles as ultrasonographic contrast agents has rendered contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) an evolving valuable complementary technique with markedly increased diagnostic accuracy for certain aortic applications. CEUS is characterized by the potential to be performed in patients with impaired renal function. Due to its superior spatial and temporal resolution, ability for prolonged scanning and dynamic and real-time imaging, it provides clinically significant additional information compared to the standard Duplex US. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the currently available literature regarding abdominal aortic applications of CEUS, briefly elaborate on CEUS technique and safety and present cases in order to illustrate the added value in aortic pathologies. Conditions discussed include abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), aneurysm rupture, aneurysm surveillance after endovascular repair, dissection and aortitis.

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.

Vascular Imaging: An Unparalleled Decade

Vascular imaging techniques, such as catheter angiography, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance (MR), have all undergone unprecedented innovation and incredible technological leaps in the last 10 years. Ultrasound, CT, and MR have progressed in acquisition speed, resolution, and accuracy to the point that they have now supplanted the former mainstay, invasive catheter-based angiography, despite the advent of digitized angiographic image recording. This review explores the advantages and shortcomings of each technique and how they have changed the diagnosis and assessment of the cardiovascular system for endovascular intervention.

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.

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.

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.

Abdominal aortic aneurysm: Treatment options, image visualizations and follow-up procedures

Abdominal aortic aneurysm is a common vascular disease that affects elderly population. Open surgical repair is regarded as the gold standard technique for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm, however, endovascular aneurysm repair has rapidly expanded since its first introduction in 1990s. As a less invasive technique, endovascular aneurysm repair has been confirmed to be an effective alternative to open surgical repair, especially in patients with co-morbid conditions. Computed tomography (CT) angiography is currently the preferred imaging modality for both preoperative planning and post-operative follow-up. 2D CT images are complemented by a number of 3D reconstructions which enhance the diagnostic applications of CT angiography in both planning and follow-up of endovascular repair. CT has the disadvantage of high cummulative radiation dose, of particular concern in younger patients, since patients require regular imaging follow-ups after endovascular repair, thus, exposing patients to repeated radiation exposure for life. There is a trend to change from CT to ultrasound surveillance of endovascular aneurysm repair. Medical image visualizations demonstrate excellent morphological assessment of aneurysm and stent-grafts, but fail to provide hemodynamic changes caused by the complex stent-graft device that is implanted into the aorta. This article reviews the treatment options of abdominal aortic aneurysm, various image visualization tools, and follow-up procedures with use of different modalities including both imaging and computational fluid dynamics methods. Future directions to improve treatment outcomes in the follow-up of endovascular aneurysm repair are outlined.

Sonographic Evaluation of Aortic Endografts

The selective use of endovascular devices to repair abdominal aortic aneurysms was introduced in the early 1990s. Although placement of an aortic endograft offers patients a less morbid alternative to surgical repair, this procedure is not without complications. Persistent perfusion of the residual aneurysmal sac via endoleaks may place the patient at risk for aneurysmal enlargement and subsequent rupture. Historically, serial computed tomographic angiography has been used as the primary modality for assessment of aortic endografts. In recent years, sonography has been shown to provide a valued tool for ongoing surveillance of aortic endografts and identification of endoleaks, increasing aneurysmal size, hemodynamic disorders, and graft migration and/or kinking. Standardization of the sonographic evaluation yields accurate information vital to the long-term patency of these conduits.

[Imaging of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)]

Endoleaks following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are common and present a diagnostic challenge in the follow-up after EVAR. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a promising new method for the diagnosis and follow-up of endoleaks. CEUS with SonoVue allows a rapid and non-invasive diagnosis in the follow-up after EVAR. The sensitivity and specificity of conventional ultrasound compared to the multislice CT angiography is estimated to be 33-63% and 63-93%, respectively. These values can be increased through the use of CEUS in up to 98-100% (sensitivity) and 82-93% (specificity). This article describes the etiology, classification and importance of different types of endoleaks. The value of CEUS in this clinical scenario will be discussed.

Endovascular stent graft repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: Current status and future directions

Endovascular stent graft repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has undergone rapid developments since it was introduced in the early 1990s. Two main types of aortic stent grafts have been developed and are currently being used in clinical practice to deal with patients with complicated or unsuitable aneurysm necks, namely, suprarenal and fenestrated stent grafts. Helical computed tomography angiography has been widely recognized as the method of choice for both pre-operative planning and post-operative follow-up of endovascular repair (EVAR). In addition to 2D axial images, a number of 2D and 3D reconstructions are generated to provide additional information about imaging of the stent grafts in relation to the aortic aneurysm diameter and extent, encroachment of stent wires to the renal artery ostium and position of the fenestrated vessel stents. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of applications of EVAR of AAA and diagnostic applications of 2D and 3D image visualizations in the assessment of treatment outcomes of EVAR. Interference of stent wires with renal blood flow from the hemodynamic point of view will also be discussed, and future directions explored.

Type II endoleaks: when is intervention indicated and what is the index of suspicion for types I or III?

One of the principal reasons for failure of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the occurrence of endoleaks, which regardless of size or type can transmit systemic pressure to the aneurysm sac. There is little debate that type I endoleaks (poor proximal or distal sealing) are associated with continued risk of aneurysm rupture and require treatment. Similarly, with type III endoleak, there is agreement that the defect in the device needs to be addressed; however, what to do with type II endoleaks and their effect on long-term outcome are not so clear. Aneurysm sac change is a primary parameter for determining the presence of an endoleak and assessing its impact. While diameter measurement has been the most commonly used method for determining sac changes, volume measurement has now been proven superior for monitoring structural changes in the 3-dimensional sac. Determining the source of an endoleak and the direction of flow are necessary for proper classification; however, while computed tomographic angiography has high sensitivity and specificity for detecting endoleaks, it is limited in its ability to show the direction of flow. Contrast-enhanced duplex ultrasound, on the other hand, is better able to quantify flow and characterize endoleaks. Flow is evidence of pressure, and increasing intrasac pressure increases wall tension, thus inducing progressive aneurysm expansion until rupture. Hence, determining intrasac pressure is becoming a vital component of endoleak assessment. All endoleaks can create systemic pressure inside the aneurysm sac, and there are a variety of intrasac pressure transducers being evaluated to assess this effect. A clinical pathway for patients with suspected type II endoleaks is based on a combination of imaging and pressure measurements. Imaging alone requires at least two interval examinations to determine the trend, while pressure measurements give immediate reassurance or an indication to intervene. Although still under development, pressure measurement is destined for general use and will provide a scientific basis for the management of type II endoleaks.

Surveillance of patients post-endovascular aneurysm repair

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is increasingly being employed as an alternative to open surgical repair for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. The surveillance of patients post-EVAR has traditionally been carried out with regular computed tomographic scans which have in part been responsible for the high costs associated with this procedure. Duplex has been proposed as an alternative, but researchers have so far been unable to devise a standardised protocol for this surveillance. This review aims to provide a clear understanding of currently employed imaging modalities and discuss future surveillance possibilities for this patient group.

Contrast ultrasound imaging: the best method to detect type II endoleak during endovascular aneurysm repair follow-up☆

OBJECTIVES

Type II endoleak is the most common complication after endovascular aneurysm repair and require close surveillance. Hence, the need to validate new techniques as alternative to helical CT-scan, the reference standard. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of Cadence Contrast Pulse Sequencing ultrasound technique with second generation contrast agents in detecting endoleaks, and to compare the results with data obtained from CTA.

METHODS

30 patients with endovascular stent grafts, during their regular follow-up consisting in serial CT and ultrasound exams performed at discharge, at one and six months and at one year thereafter, previous informed consent, were enrolled in a prospectic double blind study design in order to compare triphasic helical CT-scan to another adjunctive ultrasound investigation (Cadence CPS technique with Sono Vue). No more than 15 days occurred between the two examinations. In the study were evaluated only data obtained from the comparison of the two concomitant investigations, independently from the follow-up. Variables analysed were changes in the maximum diameter of the aneurysmal sac, presence and type of endoleak, if detected. In the case of disagreement between the two diagnostic tools angiography was performed.

RESULTS

One patient dropped out because of violation of the study protocol (a stroke occurred in the time interval between the two investigations). Both exams visualised patency and proper graft placement in all the remaining patients. Aneurysmal diameters with both investigations overlapped (r(s):0.98). In 21 patients no endoleak was detected with a significant aneurysmal sac shrinkage (P<0.001). In seven patients both methods confirmed presence of endoleak. Ultrasonography detected all type of endoleaks, while CT-scan was uncertain in one. Moreover, in one patient CT-angiography showed an increased aneurysmal diameter without other evidence, while a contrast ultrasound investigation disclosed a type II low-flow endoleak, confirmed by angiography.

CONCLUSIONS

The Cadence Contrast Pulse Sequencing with echo contrast agent is an ultrasound technique that substantially improves the ultrasound diagnostic reliability.

Contrast-enhanced Duplex surveillance after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: Improved efficacy using a continuous infusion technique

INTRODUCTION

Currently, postoperative endoleak surveillance after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is primarily done by computed tomography (CT). The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography scans to detect endoleaks by using a novel infusion method and compare these findings with those of CT angiography (CTA).

METHODS

Twenty male patients (mean age, 70.4 years) underwent surveillance utilizing both CTA and contrast-enhanced color Duplex imaging. One 3-mL vial of Optison (Perfluten Protein A microspheres for injection) and 57 mL normal saline, for a total of 60 mL, were administered to each patient as a continuous infusion at 4 mL/min via a peripheral vein. Each study was optimized with harmonic imaging, and a reduced mechanical index of 0.4 to 0.5, compression of 1 to 3, and a focal zone below the aorta to minimize microsphere rupture. One minute was allowed from the time of infusion to the appearance of contrast in the endograft. Flow was evaluated within the lumen of the graft and its components, as was the presence or absence of endoleaks. Findings were compared with standard color-flow Duplex imaging and CT utilizing CTA reconstruction protocols.

RESULTS

All patients evaluated had modular endografts implanted for elective aneurysm repair. Contrast-enhanced duplex scans identified nine endoleaks: one type I and eight type II. No additional endoleaks were seen on CTA. However, CTA failed to recognize three type II endoleaks seen by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. The continuous infusion method allowed for longer and more detailed imaging. An average of 46.8 mL of the contrast infusion solution was used per patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrast enhanced Duplex ultrasonography accurately demonstrates endoleaks after EVAR and may be considered as a primary surveillance modality. Continuous infusion permits longer imaging time.

Color Duplex Ultrasonography Is Insensitive for the Detection of Endoleak After Aortic Endografting: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To synthesize the available evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy of color duplex ultrasonography (CDU) versus the accepted gold-standard of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) for the detection and classification of endoleaks after aortic endografting.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted using electronic bibliographical databases and other means to gather articles published between 1991 and 2004. Articles were scrutinized against inclusion/exclusion criteria that broadly followed the QUADAS quality assessment guidelines. The results of diagnostic CDU were expressed for each study as a 2x2 contingency table, and summary statistics (sensitivity/specificity with 95% confidence intervals [CI]) were calculated. Pooled and random effects meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Eight published studies and 2 unpublished studies from Charing Cross and St. George's Hospitals (711 patients, 1355 paired scans performed > or = 1 month after endografting) were eligible for inclusion. From meta-analyses, the pooled sensitivity of CDU (versus CT as the gold standard) was 69% (95% CI 52% to 87%) and the specificity of CDU was 91% (95% CI 87% to 95%). These parameters did not appear to vary over time when a smaller dataset of 117 patients with 239 paired scans was used to compare CT and CDU specifically at 3, 12, and 24 months after endografting. Endoleak classification data, which was derived from only 5 small studies, indicated that CDU appeared to have better diagnostic accuracy in detecting type I or type III endoleaks compared with type II endoleaks; however, the data were insufficient for statistical analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

CDU currently does not have sufficient diagnostic accuracy for the detection of all endoleaks in routine clinical practice. The diagnostic accuracy of CDU may improve if type II endoleaks are ignored.

Vascular imaging: an unparalleled decade

Vascular imaging techniques, such as catheter angiography, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance (MR), have all undergone unprecedented innovation and incredible technological leaps in the last 10 years. Ultrasound, CT, and MR have progressed in acquisition speed, resolution, and accuracy to the point that they have now supplanted the former mainstay, invasive catheter-based angiography, despite the advent of digitized angiographic image recording. This review explores the advantages and shortcomings of each technique and how they have changed the diagnosis and assessment of the cardiovascular system for endovascular intervention.