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?

Duplex Ultrasound-Only Surveillance after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair is Associated with Favorable Long-Term Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Long-term data surrounding the impact of different endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) surveillance strategies are limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to characterize postoperative imaging patterns, as well as to evaluate the association of duplex ultrasound surveillance after the first postoperative year with 5-year EVAR outcomes.

METHODS

EVAR patients (2003-2016), who survived at least 1 year without aneurysm rupture, conversion to open repair, and reintervention in the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network were examined to provide all subjects ≥3 years of follow-up time. Patients were categorized into 6 cohorts after the first postoperative year: No imaging (N = 953); computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-only (N = 2,976); duplex ultrasound-only (DUS; N = 1,808); combined CT/MRI + DUS with >50% being CT/MRI (N = 1,937); combined CT/MRI + DUS with >50% being DUS (N = 2,253); and mixed (CT + DUS + MRI N = 1,272). Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)-related reintervention, rupture, conversion to open repair, and all-cause mortality were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models identified variables associated with using DUS-only imaging (versus CT/MRI only). Cox regression models compared 5-year outcomes between patients receiving DUS-only versus CT/MRI-only imaging.

RESULTS

A total of 11,199 EVAR patients were examined (mean age 76 ± 7 years; female: 20%; nonelective: 10%). DUS-only imaging surveillance after the first postoperative year was more likely to occur after elective repairs, as well as among older, male patients. Smaller (<6 cm) preoperative AAA diameter and absence of documented concurrent iliac aneurysm was also associated with DUS-only follow-up. Additionally, no endoleak detection on index EVAR completion imaging, as well as a documented >5 mm decrease in AAA sac diameter at 1-year follow-up was more common with DUS-only surveillance protocols. Post-EVAR DUS-only imaging after the first postoperative year had the lowest incidence of reintervention, conversion to open repair, and rupture (as well as the composite reintervention/open conversion/rupture; log-rank P < 0.001 for all). Further, patients receiving exclusively DUS after their first postoperative year had better overall survival (log-rank P < 0.001). These outcome advantages that were associated with DUS-only surveillance compared with CT/MRI-only surveillance after EVAR persisted when controlling for baseline covariates, preoperative AAA diameter, prior aortic surgery history, sac growth, and presence of endoleak (all P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR patients selected for DUS-only surveillance after the first postoperative year have excellent freedom from AAA-related reintervention, conversion to open repair, rupture and all-cause mortality. These findings remained on multivariable analysis after adjusting for baseline characteristics, endoleak status and sac diameter changes within the first year. This is the first registry-based investigation to document long-term EVAR outcomes for patients entered into a DUS-only monitoring protocol which serves to corroborate the growing evidence base that DUS may be able to supplant CT surveillance in certain subgroups. A prospective randomized multicenter trial comparing DUS versus CT-based imaging after EVAR is needed to validate these findings which may serve to change current practice guidelines, as well as industry and regulatory stakeholder requirements.

CIRSE Standards of Practice on Management of Endoleaks Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Endoleaks represent the most common complication after EVAR. Some types are associated with ongoing risk of aneurysm rupture and necessitate long-term surveillance and secondary interventions.

PURPOSE

This document, as with all CIRSE Standards of Practice documents, will recommend a reasonable approach to best practices of managing endoleaks. This will include imaging diagnosis, surveillance, indications for intervention, endovascular treatments and their outcomes. Our purpose is to provide recommendations based on up-to-date evidence, updating the guidelines previously published on this topic in 2013.

METHODS

The writing group was established by the CIRSE Standards of Practice Committee and consisted of clinicians with internationally recognised expertise in endoleak management. The writing group reviewed the existing literature performing a pragmatic evidence search using PubMed to select publications in English and relating to human subjects up to 2023. The final recommendations were formulated through consensus.

RESULTS

Endoleaks may compromise durability of the aortic repair, and long-term imaging surveillance is necessary for early detection and correct classification to guide potential re-intervention. The majority of endoleaks that require treatment can be managed using endovascular techniques. This Standards of Practice document provides up-to-date recommendations for the safe management of endoleaks.

Brazilian Society for Angiology and Vascular Surgery guidelines on abdominal aortic aneurysm

The Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery, through the Guidelines Project, presents new Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Guidelines, on the subject of care for abdominal aortic aneurysm patients. Its development prioritized descriptive guidelines, using the EMBASE, LILACS, and PubMed databases. References include randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and cohort studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated by a pair of coordinators, aided by the RoB 2 Cochrane tool and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale forms. The subjects include juxtarenal aneurysms, infected aneurysms, and new therapeutic techniques, especially endovascular procedures. The current version of the guidelines include important recommendations for the primary topics involving diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up for abdominal aortic aneurysm patients, providing an objective guide for medical practice, based on scientific evidence and widely available throughout Brazil.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and/or colour duplex ultrasound for surveillance after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is less invasive than open surgery, but may be associated with important complications. Patients receiving EVAR require long-term surveillance to detect abnormalities and direct treatments. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) has been the most common imaging modality adopted for EVAR surveillance, but it is associated with repeated radiation exposure and the risk of contrast-related nephropathy. Colour duplex ultrasound (CDU) and, more recently, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEU) have been suggested as possible, safer, alternatives to CTA.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of imaging strategies, using either CDU or CEU alone or in conjunction with plain radiography, compared with CTA for EVAR surveillance.

DATA SOURCES

Major electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Scopus' Articles-in-Press, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database from 1996 onwards. We also searched for relevant ongoing studies and conference proceedings. The final searches were undertaken in September 2016.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies of patients with AAAs who were receiving surveillance using CTA, CDU and CEU with or without plain radiography. Three reviewers were involved in the study selection, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment. We developed a Markov model based on five surveillance strategies: (1) annual CTA; (2) annual CDU; (3) annual CEU; (4) CDU together with CTA at 1 year, followed by CDU on an annual basis; and (5) CEU together with CTA at 1 year, followed by CEU on an annual basis. All of these strategies also considered plain radiography on an annual basis.

RESULTS

We identified two non-randomised comparative studies and 25 cohort studies of interventions, and nine systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy. Overall, the proportion of patients who required reintervention ranged from 1.1% (mean follow-up of 24 months) to 23.8% (mean follow-up of 32 months). Reintervention was mainly required for patients with thrombosis and types I-III endoleaks. All-cause mortality ranged from 2.7% (mean follow-up of 24 months) to 42% (mean follow-up of 54.8 months). Aneurysm-related mortality occurred in < 1% of the participants. Strategies based on early and mid-term CTA and/or CDU and long-term CDU surveillance were broadly comparable with those based on a combination of CTA and CDU throughout the follow-up period in terms of clinical complications, reinterventions and mortality. The economic evaluation showed that a CDU-based strategy generated lower expected costs and higher quality-adjusted life-year (QALYs) than a CTA-based strategy and has a 63% probability of being cost-effective at a £30,000 willingness-to-pay-per-QALY threshold. A CEU-based strategy generated more QALYs, but at higher costs, and became cost-effective only for high-risk patient groups.

LIMITATIONS

Most studies were rated as being at a high or moderate risk of bias. No studies compared CDU with CEU. Substantial clinical heterogeneity precluded a formal synthesis of results. The economic model was hindered by a lack of suitable data.

CONCLUSIONS

Current surveillance practice is very heterogeneous. CDU may be a safe and cost-effective alternative to CTA, with CTA being reserved for abnormal/inconclusive CDU cases.

FUTURE WORK

Research is needed to validate the safety of modified, more-targeted surveillance protocols based on the use of CDU and CEU. The role of radiography for surveillance after EVAR requires clarification.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016036475.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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.

Radiation exposure in patients treated with endovascular aneurysm repair: what is the risk of cancer, and can we justify treating younger patients?

Background Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is becoming the mainstay treatment of abdominal aortic aneurisms (AAA). The postoperative follow-up regime includes a lifelong series of CT angiograms (CTAs) at different intervals in addition to EVAR, which will confer significant cumulative radiation exposure over time. Purpose To examine the impact of age and follow-up regime over time on cumulative radiation exposure and attributable cancer risk after EVAR. Material and Methods We calculated a mean effective dose (ED) for the EVAR procedure, CTA, and plain abdominal X-rays (PAX). Cumulative ED was calculated for standard, complex, and simplified surveillance over 5, 10, and 15 years for different age groups. Results For EVAR, the mean ED was 34 mSv (range, 12-75 mSv) per procedure. For PAX, the ED was 1.1 mSv (range, 0.3-4.4 mSv), and for CTA it was 8.0 mSv (range, 2-20 mSv). For a 55-year-old man, an attributable cancer risk (ACR) in standard surveillance at 5 and 15 years of follow-up was 0.35% and 0.65%, respectively. The corresponding values were 0.22% and 0.37% for a 75-year-old man. When using a simplified follow-up, the ACRs for a 55-year-old at 5 and 15 years were 0.30% and 0.37%, respectively. These values were 0.18% and 0.21% for a 75-year-old man. A complex follow-up with half-yearly CTA over similar age and time span doubled the ACR. Conclusion Treating younger patients with EVAR poses a low ACR of 0.65% (15-year standard surveillance) compared to a lifetime cancer risk of 44%. A simplified surveillance should be used if treating younger patients, which will halve the ACR over 15 years.

Surveillance Imaging Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

There is a significant risk of complication following endovascular abdominal repair (EVAR), including endoleak, graft translocation, thrombosis, and infection. Surveillance imaging is important for detecting EVAR complication. Surveillance modalities include conventional X-ray, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, and conventional angiography, with inherent advantages and drawbacks to each modality. The authors present common complications following EVAR, and recent advances in the key modalities for surveillance.

Ultrasonographic Surveillance of Abdominal Aortic Endovascular Aneurysm Stent Graft Repair in a Dedicated Vascular Laboratory

Surveillance following abdominal aortic endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is imperative to confirm graft patency, analyze residual sac size (RSS), and evaluate for complications. This retrospective study evaluated ultrasonographic (US) surveillance after EVAR compared to computed tomography (CT). US was done by 1 of 11 experienced registered technologists. US was ordered for surveillance more frequently than CT, with a ratio of 4:1. Compared to CT, US endoleak evaluations were 74% sensitive and 76% specific with a 63% positive predictive value and 84% negative predictive value. However, 11 CT scans were likely false negatives, and 1 CT was a false positive. For true positives that stated endoleak type, there was a 93% agreement between the type on US and CT. US had a 75% accuracy for RSS (95% CI, −1.02 to 1.16). These data support the use of US along with clinical symptoms as a first-line surveillance program after EVAR and are widely applicable to the majority of vascular laboratories that employ multiple registered vascular technologists. The adaptation of increased US surveillance would decrease the number of CT scans, thereby significantly reducing cost and radiation/contrast exposure to patients.

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.

Dual-source dual-energy CT: dose reduction after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE

This study was done to evaluate the possibility of reducing the dose of ionising radiation by using dual-source dual-energy computed tomography (CT) in patients undergoing CT angiography of the aorta to search for endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and forty-eight patients (117 M, 31 F; mean age 75 ± 6.5) underwent 171 CT angiography scans for follow-up after EVAR. For each patient we performed a triple-phase acquisition protocol consisting of a nonenhanced phase, an arterial phase and a delayed phase; the latter acquired in dual energy. Two radiologists jointly evaluated the nonenhanced, arterial and delayed phase, and a third radiologist evaluated only the delayed phase and its virtual noncontrast (VNC) reconstruction. Moreover, we compared the cumulative effective doses of the triple-phase acquisition with the dual-energy acquisition.

RESULTS

We detected 34 endoleaks (19.8 %), with 100 % agreement between the triple-phase and dual-energy acquisitions. The effective dose of dual-energy acquisition performed during the delayed phase was 61.7 % lower than that of the triple-phase acquisition.

CONCLUSIONS

A dual-energy CT scan acquired during the delayed phase and its VNC reconstruction allow detection of endoleaks with a substantial reduction of effective dose and a complete diagnostic agreement with a triple-phase acquisition protocol.