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

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.

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.

A Narrative Review on Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Aortic Endograft Endoleak Surveillance

Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms have been performed successfully since 1991. However, 20% to 50% of these patients may develop an endoleak or continued aneurysmal sac expansion or perfusion despite stent graft coverage. Current recommendations suggest lifelong surveillance with computed tomographic angiography (CTA) at least 1 month after intervention and yearly after that. In select patients with a stable aneurysm sac on computed tomography performed 1 year after treatment, future screening could be performed with ultrasonography. However, color Doppler ultrasound can fail to detect as many as 31% of endoleaks. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) provides an alternative approach to excluded aneurysm sac follow-up imaging. The Society for Vascular Surgery notes a need for further research on the role of CEUS in endovascular aortic repair surveillance. The European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology suggests that early results are promising. Meta-analyses report pooled sensitivities and specificities of CEUS compared with CTA for the detection of endoleak between 89% and 98% and 86% and 88%, respectively. Owing to the dynamic flow information it provides, CEUS may actually be more sensitive than CTA at detection and characterization in select circumstances. Challenges with adoption, patient selection, and operator dependency remain, but current and future research suggests a role for CEUS in endoleak surveillance.

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.

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.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound after endovascular aortic repair-current status and future perspectives

An increasing number of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) instead of open surgery. These patients require lifelong surveillance, and the follow-up imaging modality of choice has been traditionally computed tomography angiography (CTA). Repetitive CTA imaging is associated with cumulative radiation exposure and requires the administration of multiple doses of nephrotoxic contrast agents. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has emerged as an alternative strategy in the follow-up of patients with EVAR and demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for detection of endoleaks. In fact, a series of studies have shown that CEUS is at least performing equal to computed tomography for the detection and classification of endoleaks. This article summarizes current evidence of CEUS after EVAR and demonstrates its usefulness via various patient cases.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) versus computed tomography angiography (CTA) in detection of endoleaks in post-EVAR patients. Are delayed type II endoleaks being missed? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to computed tomography angiography (CTA) for the detection of endoleaks within EVAR surveillance program.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane database was performed. Articles assessing diagnostic accuracy and comparative modality (CTA vs. CEUS) for endoleaks in adult patients within surveillance programs were retrieved. Methodological assessment was performed, using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tools. The sensitivity and specificity of data were extracted and statistical analysis was performed using MetaDiSc version 1.4.

RESULTS

Eight articles were found eligible (n = 454 patients). The pooled sensitivity of CEUS at detecting endoleak is 0.914 (CI 0.866-0.949) and pooled specificity is 0.782 (CI 0.741-0.820).

CONCLUSION

The CEUS with its dynamic nature and longer scanning window demonstrated to be a highly sensitive modality for endoleak detection in comparison to CTA in delayed endoleaks type II.

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.

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.

Outcomes of percutaneous endovascular intervention for type II endoleak with aneurysm expansion

OBJECTIVE

Type II endoleak (T2EL) with aneurysm expansion is believed to place patients at risk for aneurysm-related mortality (ARM). Treatment with glue and/or coil embolization of the aneurysm sac, inferior mesenteric artery (IMA), and lumbar branches via translumbar or transarterial approaches has been utilized to ablate such endoleaks, and thus decrease ARM. We evaluated the midterm results of percutaneous endovascular treatment of T2EL with aneurysm expansion.

METHODS

Single-institution, 5-year (January 2003 to August 2008) retrospective study of all endovascular interventions for T2EL with sac expansion. Blinded, independent review of all available pre- and post-T2EL intervention computed tomography (CT) scans was performed. Aneurysm sac maximal transverse diameters and aneurysm sac growth rates prior to and following T2EL intervention were analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients (34 male, eight female; mean age, 75) underwent T2EL intervention at 26 ± 20 months after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and were subsequently followed for 23 ± 20 months. Seven out of 42 patients (17%) underwent repeat T2EL intervention. Interventions included 44 translumbar sac embolizations, and transcatheter embolizations of nine IMAs and seven lumbar/hypogastric arteries. Aneurysm diameter was 6.1 ± 1.6 cm at EVAR, 6.6 ± 1.5 cm at initial T2EL treatment, and 6.9 ± 1.7 cm at last follow-up. There were no significant differences in the rates of aneurysm sac growth pre- and post-T2EL treatment. At last follow-up imaging, recurrent or persistent T2EL was noted in 72% of patients. Of 42 patients, nine (21%) received operative endoluminal correction of occult type I or type III endoleaks that were diagnosed during the T2EL angiographic intervention. There were no aneurysm ruptures or ARMs during follow-up; overall mortality for the 5-year study period was 24%.

CONCLUSIONS

In this series, percutaneous endovascular intervention for type II endoleak with aneurysm sac growth does not appear to alter the rate of aneurysm sac growth, and the majority of patients display persistent/recurrent endoleak. However, diagnostic angiographic evaluation may reveal unexpected type I and III endoleaks and is therefore recommended for all patients with T2EL and sac growth. While coil and glue embolization of aneurysm sac and selected branch vessels does not appear to yield benefit in our series, the diagnosis and subsequent definitive treatment of previously occult type I and III endoleaks may explain the absence of delayed rupture and ARM in our series.

Imaging in endovascular therapy: our future

The endovascular therapist now has many modern imaging techniques available to plan and execute treatment, whereas in the past vascular surgeons relied mostly on clinical examination and arteriography. Advances in computer technology have enabled fast acquisition and processing of the large amounts of digital data essential to capture the dynamic information from fast-flowing blood at high resolution. Functional imaging has begun to play a role in predicting stability of progressive vascular disease and the need for and risks of intervention. Computing power now affords the interventionist the ability to handle imaging data in powerful 3-dimensional programs and electronically "in-lay" a variety of devices to plan complex endovascular procedures from the familiar platform of a laptop. In four major clinical areas, carotid intervention, peripheral intervention, endoluminal grafting, and cardiac imaging, we review the latest advances and changes with an eye toward how we should best be using imaging in our patients undergoing endovascular treatment...now and into the future.

Endovascular treatment of giant intracranial aneurysms with willis covered stents: technical case report

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of endovascular treatment of giant intracranial aneurysms with Willis covered stents (Micro-Port, Shanghai, China).

CLINICAL PRESENTATION

The endovascular treatment of two cases of giant intracranial aneurysm was successfully accomplished by the placement of Willis covered stents specially designed for intracranial use. Both patients presented with symptoms of cavernous mass effect that resulted from a giant aneurysm in the cavernous segment of the internal carotid artery.

INTERVENTION

Three Willis covered stents were successfully placed in two patients. Immediate postprocedure angiograms demonstrated some endoleak of the aneurysms. In one patient, the endoleak was eliminated and complete exclusion of the aneurysms was confirmed with follow-up angiography. However, the other patient required the placement of a new Willis covered stent.

CONCLUSION

The use of covered stents in intracranial vascular structures is a feasible method to treat selected cases of intracranial giant aneurysms. It is suggested that patients who present with compressive mass effect caused by large or giant aneurysms are the best candidates for covered stent placement, but potential complications should be considered carefully before the stenting procedure.