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

Individualizing Surveillance after Endovascular Aortic Repair Using a Modular Imaging Algorithm

OBJECTIVES

Surveillance after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and fenestrated EVAR (FEVAR) is mainly directed by one-size-fits-all approaches instead of personalized decision making, even though treatment strategies and often endografts themselves are tailor-made to adjust for individual patients. We propose a modular imaging algorithm that escalates surveillance imaging based on invasiveness and need.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective observational study of single-center data, results of a modular imaging algorithm were analyzed. The algorithm is characterized by initiating the examination with standard B-mode then transitioning to Duplex ultrasound, B-Flow, and CEUS. Additional CT(A) studies are conducted where required. The study population included both patients receiving EVAR or FEVAR. A comparative analysis was conducted regarding endoleak detection.

RESULTS

The study population included 28 patients receiving EVAR and 40 patients receiving FEVAR. They accounted for 101 follow-up visits, which led to 431 distinct imaging studies. CEUS has the highest endoleak detection rate, followed by CTA and B-Flow. Duplex ultrasound and B-Flow resulted in 0 and 1 false positive cases, respectively, considering CEUS the reference standard. In a select group of six patients, CEUS was omitted after endoleaks were displayed by Duplex ultrasound or B-Flow, leading to a successful type II coiling and no aneurysm-related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed modular algorithm showed great potential to incorporate principles of personalized medicine in surveillance after endovascular aortic treatment. Since Duplex ultrasound and B-Flow rarely cause false positive endoleaks, more resource-intensive and invasive imaging studies such as CEUS and CTA can be omitted after positive identification.

Incidence, reintervention, and survival associated with type II endoleak at hospital discharge after elective endovascular aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative

BACKGROUND

The longitudinal clinical significance of type II endoleaks (T2ELs) remains controversial. Specifically, the real-world incidence, need for reintervention, and associated mortality referable to T2ELs remain unknown. Moreover, current professional society clinical practice guidelines recommend differing aneurysm sac growth thresholds to prompt intervention. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis was to better quantify the prevalence of early T2ELs after infrarenal endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and determine its association with reintervention and survival.

METHODS

All elective EVARs from the Vascular Quality Initiative (2010-2020) were examined to identify patients with isolated T2ELs vs no endoleak (NONE) at discharge. Procedures with a type I or III endoleak were excluded. A subgroup analysis was performed on patients surviving beyond the first postoperative year with follow-up data available on endoleaks. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included perioperative mortality and reinterventions. Outcomes were assessed by multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression to adjust for covariates.

RESULTS

We identified 53,697 patients who underwent EVAR. The overall incidence of isolated T2ELs at discharge was 16%. In-hospital mortality was lower for those with isolated T2ELs vs NONE (0.8% vs 1.9%, odds ratio: 0.6, 95% confidence interval: 0.5-0.8, P < .0001). Unadjusted overall survival was marginally higher at 5 years for patients with T2ELs vs NONE (84% vs 82%); however, after risk adjustment, survival was similar (hazard ratio: 0.95, 95% confidence interval: 0.9-1.0). Among 44,345 patients with 1-year follow-up, 66% had data on endoleak status for assessment. Survival was similar regardless of endoleak status (NONE, at discharge only, at follow-up only, or at both time points). Among patients with documented T2ELs during follow-up, 6.1% and 2.5% had abdominal aortic aneurysm sac diameter growth ≥5 mm and ≥10 mm, respectively. Reinterventions occurred in 12%. Rupture (1%) and any open reintervention (4%) were rare among patients with 1-year follow-up. For patients with T2ELs, 5-year survival was similar between those with and without reintervention by 1 year (89% vs 91%, log-rank P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS

T2ELs remain common after EVAR within the Vascular Quality Initiative and are not associated with long-term mortality. Reinterventions for T2ELs were not associated with improved overall survival among patients with T2ELs. Although additional data surrounding the appropriate role of reintervention for T2ELs remain necessary, it appears that the natural history of T2ELs is benign.

Endoleak Detection after Endovascular Aortic Repair via Coded-Excitation Ultrasound-A Feasibility Study

Endoleaks are the most common complication after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Their correct identification is one of the main objectives of surveillance protocols after EVAR. So far, computed tomography angiography (CTA), contrast-enhanced (CEUS) and Duplex ultrasound (DUS), as well as magnetic resonance angiography, have been investigated for their ability to detect endoleaks. In general, all technologies have distinct benefits and disadvantages, with CTA and CEUS emerging as the reference standard for surveillance after EVAR. However, they are both contrast-enhancer-dependent, and CTA additionally exposes patients to ionizing radiation. In the present study, we investigated B-Flow, a type of coded-excitation ultrasound that was specifically designed to optimize the visualization of blood flow, for its ability to detect endoleaks, and compared its performance to CEUS, CTA, and DUS. In total, 34 patients were included in the analysis that accumulated in 43 distinct B-Flow investigations. They underwent a total of 132 imaging investigations. Agreement between B-Flow and other imaging modalities was high (>80.0%), while inter-method reliability can be interpreted as good. However, with B-Flow, six and one endoleaks would have been missed compared to CEUS and CTA, respectively. Regarding endoleak classification, all metrics were lower but retained an adequate level of comparison. In a subset of patients requiring intervention, B-Flow had 100% accuracy regarding both endoleak detection and classification. Ultrasonography enables endoleak detection and classification without the need for pharmaceutical contrast enhancement or radiation. Ultrasound coded-excitation imaging in the application of B-Flow could further simplify surveillance after EVAR by offering adequate accuracy without requiring intravenous contrast enhancement. Our findings may promote subsequent investigations of coded-excitation imaging for endoleak detection and classification in the surveillance after EVAR.

Contrast enhanced duplex ultrasound for early postoperative follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair: Relation to patient's initial risk of complications

OBJECTIVES

Current guidelines recommend initial postoperative follow-up with computed tomography angiography (CTA) after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). However, CTA has risks associated with ionizing radiations and nephrotoxic contrast agents. We investigated possibilities to replace the initial postoperative CTA with contrast enhanced duplex ultrasound (CE-DUS) in selected patients.

METHODS

Out of the 273 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR, 173 were excluded and the 100 patients who underwent CTA and CE-DUS imaging concurrently (≤1 month interval between CTA and CE-DUS imaging) within 60 days after EVAR were analyzed. Patients who underwent EVAR outside the manufacturer's instructions for use or who had endoleaks discovered on intraoperative angiography were classified as the high-risk group, otherwise, they were classified as the low-risk group. Measurements of diagnostic values of CE-DUS ​​related to the detection of complications were calculated using CTA as the gold standard. McNemar's test was performed to compare these values and Pearson correlation coefficient was derived to compare CE-DUS measurements of sac diameters with CTA.

RESULTS

In the low-risk group, no difference was observed between CE-DUS and CTA in the detection of EVAR-related complications (sensitivity = 0.95, specificity = 0.93). In the high-risk group, CE-DUS was not as accurate as CTA for the detection of overall EVAR-related complications (sensitivity = 0.57, specificity = 0.86, p = 0.04) and for the detection of complications other than endoleaks (p = 0.02). Regarding sac diameter measurement, there was good agreement between CE-DUS and CTA (r = 0.92, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

First postoperative CE-DUS was reliable for the evaluation of EVAR-related complications compared to CTA in selected patients. Individualized EVAR follow-up strategy using CE-DUS based on the initial risk of EVAR-related complications should be considered.

Endotension: twenty years of a controversial term

Use of the term endotension in the treatment of aortic aneurysm is currently controversial. Initially it was proposed to define the circumstance in which there is an enlargement of the aneurysm sac after endovascular repair without a demonstrable endoleak. The term was established with the aim of transmitting the possibility of causes other than pressure applying stress to the aneurysm wall. Twenty years have passed since the proposal of this terminology was published. The literature is reviewed with the purpose of providing an update on advances in the knowledge of the possible etiological mechanisms. The experimental studies call into question that causes other than pressure determine the increase of the aneurysm. On the basis of this review, the term `Sac Expansion Without Evident Leak´ (SEWEL) is proposed as a more accurate and precise denomination for what is aimed to be defined. Evidence suggests that the more likely mechanisms of persistent pressurization of the aneurysm sac are an unidentified endoleak (likely type I or low-flow Type II) or thrombus occluding wide and short channels that connects with the excluded aneurysm sac (at the attachment sites of the stent-graft or at the branch vessels orifices).

Color Doppler ultrasound for surveillance following EVAR as the primary tool

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

Background

Color-duplex ultrasonography (DUS) could be an alternative to computed tomography-aortography (CTA) in the lifelong surveillance of patients after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), but there is currently no level 1 evidence. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DUS as an alternative to CTA for the follow-up of post-EVAR patients.

Methods

Between December 16, 2010, and June 12, 2015, we conducted a prospective, blinded, diagnostic-accuracy study, in 15 French university hospitals where EVAR was commonly performed. Participants were followed up using both DUS and CTA in a mutually blinded setup until the end of the study or until any major aneurysm-related morphological abnormality requiring reintervention or an amendment to the follow-up policy was revealed by CTA. Database was locked on October 2, 2017. Our main outcome measures were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, positive and negative likelihood ratios of DUS against reference standard CTA. CIs are binomial 95% CI.

Results

This study recruited prospectively 659 post-EVAR patients of whom 539 (82%) were eligible for further analysis. Following the baseline inclusion visit, 940 additional follow-up visits were performed in the 539 patients. Major aneurysm-related morphological abnormalities were revealed by CTA in 103 patients (17.2/100 person-years [95% CI, 13.9–20.5]). DUS accurately identified 40 patients where a major aneurysm-related morphological abnormality was present (sensitivity, 39% [95% CI, 29–48]) and 403 of 436 patients with negative CTA (specificity, 92% [95% CI, 90–95]). The negative predictive value and positive predictive value of DUS were 92% (95% CI, 90–95) and 39% (95% CI, 27–50), respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.87 (95% CI, 2.9–9.6). DUS sensitivity reached 73% (95% CI, 51–96) in patients requiring an effective reintervention.

Conclusions

DUS had an overall low sensitivity in the follow-up of patients after EVAR, but its performance improved meaningfully when the subset of patients requiring effective reinterventions was considered.

Registration

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01230203.

The association between perioperative embolization of hypogastric arteries and type II endoleaks after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Type II endoleaks (T2ELs) are the most common type of endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). The iliolumbar artery arising from the hypogastric artery is often a major source of T2ELs, and transarterial embolization of the iliolumbar artery through the hypogastric artery is sometimes performed to interrupt sac expansion during follow-up. Considering the equivocal results of an association between hypogastric embolization and T2ELs in previous studies, this topic has re-emerged after the advent of iliac branch devices. This study reviewed our series to clarify whether hypogastric embolization is associated with T2ELs at 12 months after EVAR.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective EVAR between June 2007 and May 2017 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with postoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) at 12 months were included. Patients in whom CTA revealed type I or type III endoleaks during follow-up, who required reinterventions before 12 months, and who had solitary iliac aneurysms were excluded. The primary outcome was the incidence of T2ELs at 12 months after EVAR. The associations of patients' characteristics, anatomic factors, hypogastric embolization, and type of endograft with the primary outcome were analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 375 patients were enrolled. During the median follow-up of 59.5 months (interquartile range, 19-126 months), 40 patients died, and 50 reinterventions were performed. In 108 patients (28.8%), either hypogastric artery was embolized to extend distal landings to the external iliac artery. Bilateral and unilateral embolization was performed in nine and 99 patients, respectively. In total, 153 patients (40.8%) had T2ELs found by CTA at 12 months. In the univariate analysis, the status of hypogastric artery occlusion or embolization was not significantly different between patients with and without T2ELs. However, there were not enough patients to detect a 10% difference in T2ELs with >80% statistical power. In the multivariate analysis, significant associations with T2EL were observed for female sex (P = .049), patent inferior mesenteric artery (P = .006), and presence of five or more patent lumbar arteries (P < .001) but not for hypogastric embolization. In addition, compared with the Zenith (Cook Medical, Bloomington, Ind) endograft, the Excluder (W. L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) endograft was significantly related to T2EL (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant association between hypogastric embolization and T2EL was demonstrated in this retrospective study, which lacked adequate statistical power.

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.

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.

Superb Micro-vascular Imaging (SMI): a Doppler ultrasound technique with potential to identify, classify, and follow up endoleaks in patients after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR)

Purpose

The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of Superb Micro-vascular Imaging (SMI) as an alternative to Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) and Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) for endoleak detection and classification in patients followed up after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

Materials and methods

From May 2015 to January 2017, 30 patients underwent post-EVAR follow-up with Color Doppler Ultrasound (CDUS), CEUS, SMI, and CTA examinations. Aneurysmal sac diameter and graft patency were evaluated; endoleaks were identified and classified. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values were calculated for each of the four diagnostic methods of endoleak detection. A percentage of agreement and Cohen’s Kappa coefficient were calculated for comparison of methods in terms of endoleak identification.

Results

CTA revealed fifteen endoleaks (50%): three type Ia, nine type II, and three type III. The sensitivity of CDUS, CEUS, and SMI relative to CTA was 27%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Specificity was 93%, 93%, and 93%, respectively. Accuracy was 60%, 97%, and 97%, respectively. There were no differences between SMI and CEUS in terms of sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy (100%, 93%, and 97%). We do not observe statistically significant differences between CTA, CEUS, and SMI concerning endoleak identification ability. The weakest method in endoleak identification was CDUS.

Conclusions

The analysis showed that SMI is effective, repeatable, and comparable with the CEUS modality in identification endoleaks after EVAR; it may be considered as a potential tool to monitor patients after EVAR implantation, especially those with renal insufficiency or with an allergy to any contrast media.

The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on follow-up after vascular surgery arterial procedures

Although follow-up after open surgical and endovascular procedures is generally regarded as an important part of the care provided by vascular surgeons, there are no detailed or comprehensive guidelines that specify the optimal approaches with regard to testing methods, indications for reintervention, and follow-up intervals. To provide guidance to the vascular surgeon, the Clinical Practice Council of the Society for Vascular Surgery appointed an expert panel and a methodologist to review the current clinical evidence and to develop recommendations for follow-up after vascular surgery procedures. For those procedures for which high-quality evidence was not available, recommendations were based on observational studies, committee consensus, and indirect evidence. Recognizing that there are numerous published reports on the role of duplex ultrasound for surveillance of infrainguinal vein bypass grafts, the Society commissioned a systematic review and meta-analysis on this topic. The panel classified the strength of each recommendation and the corresponding quality of evidence on the basis of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system: recommendations were graded either strong or weak, and the quality of evidence was graded high, moderate, or low. The resulting recommendations represent a wide variety of open surgical and endovascular procedures involving the extracranial carotid artery, thoracic and abdominal aorta, mesenteric and renal arteries, and lower extremity arterial revascularization. The panel also identified many areas in which there was a lack of high-quality evidence to support their recommendations. This suggests that there are opportunities for further clinical research on testing methods, threshold criteria, and the role of surveillance as well as on the modes of failure and indications for reintervention after vascular surgery procedures.

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.

Complications of endovascular aneurysm repair of the thoracic and abdominal aorta: evaluation and management

In recent decades, endovascular aneurysm repair or endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has become an acceptable alternative to open surgery for the treatment of thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysms and other aortic pathologies such as the acute aortic syndromes (e.g., penetrating aortic ulcer, intramural hematoma, dissection). Available data suggest that endovascular repair is associated with lower perioperative 30-day all-cause mortality as well as a significant reduction in perioperative morbidity when compared to open surgery. Additionally, EVAR leads to decreased blood loss, eliminates the need for cross-clamping the aorta and has shorter recovery periods than traditional surgery. It is currently the preferred mode of treatment of thoracic and abdominal aortic aneurysms in a subset of patients who meet certain anatomic criteria conducive to endovascular repair. The main disadvantage of EVAR procedures is the high rate of post-procedural complications that often require secondary re-intervention. As a result, most authorities recommend lifelong imaging surveillance following repair. Available surveillance modalities include conventional radiography, computed tomography, magnetic resonance angiography, ultrasonography, nuclear imaging and conventional angiography, with computed tomography currently considered to be the gold standard for surveillance by most experts. Following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, the rate of complications is estimated to range between 16% and 30%. The complication rate is higher following thoracic EVAR (TEVAR) and is estimated to be as high as 38%. Common complications include both those related to the endograft device and systemic complications. Device-related complications include endoleaks, endograft migration or collapse, kinking and/or stenosis of an endograft limb and graft infection. Post-procedural systemic complications include end-organ ischemia, cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events and post-implantation syndrome. Secondary re-interventions are required in approximately 19% to 24% of cases following endovascular abdominal and thoracic aortic aneurysm repair respectively. Typically, most secondary reinterventions involve the use of percutaneous techniques such as placement of cuff extension devices, additional endograft components or stents, enhancement of endograft fixation, treatment of certain endoleaks using various embolization techniques and embolic agents and thrombolysis of occluded endograft components. Less commonly, surgical conversion and/or open surgical modification are required. In this article, we provide an overview of the most common complications that may occur following endovascular repair of thoracic and AAAs. We also summarize the current surveillance recommendations for detecting and evaluating these complications and discuss various current secondary re-intervention approaches that may typically be employed for treatment.

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.

Duplex ultrasound and computed tomography angiography in the follow-up of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a comparative study

Objective

To compare duplex ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) angiography in terms of their performance in detecting endoleaks, as well as in determining the diameter of the aneurysm sac, in the postoperative follow-up of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

Materials and Methods

This was a prospective study involving 30 patients who had undergone endovascular repair of infrarenal aortoiliac aneurysms. Duplex ultrasound and CT angiography were performed simultaneously by independent radiologists. Measurements of the aneurysm sac diameter were assessed, and the presence or absence of endoleaks was determined.

Results

The average diameter of the aneurysm sac, as determined by duplex ultrasound and CT angiography was 6.09 ± 1.95 and 6.27 ± 2.16 cm, respectively. Pearson's correlation coefficient showing a statistically significant correlation (R = 0.88; p < 0.01). Comparing the duplex ultrasound and CT angiography results regarding the detection of endoleaks, we found that the former had a negative predictive value of 92.59% and a specificity of 96.15%.

Conclusion

Our results show that there is little variation between the two methods evaluated, and that the choice between the two would have no significant effect on clinical management. Duplex ultrasound could replace CT angiography in the postoperative follow-up of endovascular aneurysm repair of the infrarenal aorta, because it is a low-cost procedure without the potential clinical complications related to the use of iodinated contrast and exposure to radiation.

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.

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.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: clinical applications in patients with atherosclerosis

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is increasingly being used to evaluate patients with known or suspected atherosclerosis. The administration of a microbubble contrast agent in conjunction with ultrasound results in an improved image quality and provides information that cannot be assessed with standard B-mode ultrasound. CEUS is a high-resolution, noninvasive imaging modality, which is safe and may benefit patients with coronary, carotid, or aortic atherosclerosis. CEUS allows a reliable assessment of endocardial borders, left ventricular function, intracardiac thrombus and myocardial perfusion. CEUS results in an improved detection of carotid atherosclerosis, and allows assessment of high-risk plaque characteristics including intraplaque vascularization, and ulceration. CEUS provides real-time bedside information in patients with a suspected or known abdominal aortic aneurysm or aortic dissection. The absence of ionizing radiation and safety of the contrast agent allow repetitive imaging which is particularly useful in the follow-up of patients after endovascular aneurysm repair. New developments in CEUS-based molecular imaging will improve the understanding of the pathophysiology of atherosclerosis and may in the future allow to image and directly treat cardiovascular diseases (theragnostic CEUS). Familiarity with the strengths and limitations of CEUS may have a major impact on the management of patients with atherosclerosis.

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.

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.

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.

Single-centre prospective comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and computed tomography angiography after EVAR

AIM

To evaluate contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as an effective alternative to CT-angiography (CTA) for endoleak detection and aneurismal sac diameter measurement in the follow-up after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

From January 2006 to December 2010, 395 patients underwent EVAR follow-up with both CTA and CEUS. The diameter of the aneurismal sac and the presence of endoleaks were evaluated in all the 395 paired examinations.

RESULTS

Bland-Altman plots showed a good agreement in aneurismal sac diameter evaluation between the two imaging modalities. The mean diameter was 54.93 mm (standard deviation (SD) ±12.57) with CEUS and 56.01 mm (SD ± 13.23) with CTA. The mean difference in aneurismal sac diameter was -1.08 mm ± 3.3543 (95% confidence interval (CI), -0.75 to -1.41), in favour of CTA. The number of observed agreement in endoleak detection was 359/395 (90.89%). The two modalities detected the same type I and type III endoleaks. McNemar's χ(2) test confirmed that CTA and CEUS are equivalent in endoleak detection.

CONCLUSIONS

CEUS demonstrated to be as accurate as CTA in endoleak detection and abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements during EVAR follow-up, without carrying the risks of radiation exposure or nephrotoxicity. Even if it cannot be proposed as the sole imaging modality during follow-up, our analysis suggests that it should have a major role.

Imaging Surveillance following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Endoleaks are unique complications of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) that necessitate lifelong imaging surveillance for the patient. Several imaging modalities may be used to monitor the patient for endoleaks and other complications related to the stent graft. At present, computed tomographic angiography remains the gold standard for the detection of endoleaks. Other modalities that can be used to detect endoleaks include magnetic resonance, ultrasonography, nuclear medicine techniques, and pressure monitoring. In addition, follow-up imaging with digital subtraction angiography is important for endoleak classification and to guide decisions regarding therapy. In this article, we review the classification of endoleaks and discuss the different imaging strategies available for post-EVAR surveillance.

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.

Duplex Ultrasound Scanning (DUS) Versus Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) in the Follow-Up After EVAR

Introduction: Computed tomography angiography (CTA) is the gold standard follow-up modality after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). A potential alternative noninvasive and less expensive modality is duplex ultrasound scanning (DUS). Methods: We studied 314 follow-up paired scans (DUS and CTA) in 59 patients with EVAR. Results: Endoleak—Endoleak was detected in 23.7% patients. The sensitivity and specificity rates of DUS were 54% and 95.3%, respectively. All 9 endoleaks that needed secondary intervention were detected on DUS. Eight of those were identified within a year after EVAR. Sac size—The mean difference in maximum diameter between the DUS and CTA was ≤5 mm in 84.5% of cases and ≤10 mm in 97.1%. Graft patency—There was 100% agreement between CTA and DUS. Conclusions: Duplex ultrasound scanning was reliable as it detected all the leaks that needed reintervention after EVAR. Duplex ultrasound scanning showed similar results to CTA in detecting sac size and patency.