A Systematic Review of Ultrasound or Magnetic Resonance Imaging Compared With Computed Tomography for Endoleak Detection and Aneurysm Diameter Measurement After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2016
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.
EVAR trial participants. Endovascular aneurysm repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365:2179–2186.
2.
LederleFAFreischlagJAKyriakidesTCOutcomes following endovascular vs open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2009;302:1535–1542.
3.
United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators, GreenhalghRMBrownLCEndovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:1863–1871.
4.
IlyasSShaidaNThakorASEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) follow-up imaging: the assessment and treatment of common postoperative complications. Clin Radiol. 2015;70:183–196.
5.
ChaikofELBrewsterDCDalmanRLThe care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: the Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(4 suppl):S2–S49.
6.
MollFLPowellJTFraedrichGManagement of abdominal aortic aneurysms clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;41(suppl 1):S1–S58.
7.
KarthikesalingamAThrumurthySGJacksonDCurrent evidence is insufficient to define an optimal threshold for intervention in isolated type II endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther. 2012;19:200–208.
8.
GörichJRilingerNSokiranskiRLeakages after endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms: classification based on findings at CT, angiography, and radiography. Radiology. 1999;213:767–772.
9.
HabetsJZandvoortHJReitsmaJBMagnetic resonance imaging is more sensitive than computed tomography angiography for the detection of endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;45:340–350.
10.
BeemanBRDoctorLMDoerrKDuplex ultrasound imaging alone is sufficient for midterm endovascular aneurysm repair surveillance: a cost analysis study and prospective comparison with computed tomography scan. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50:1019–1024.
HowellsPEatonRPatelASRisk of radiation exposure during endovascular aortic repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2012;43:393–397.
14.
HertaultAMaurelBPontanaFBenefits of completion 3D angiography associated with contrast enhanced ultrasound to assess technical success after EVAR. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:541–548.
15.
KarthikesalingamAAl-JundiWJacksonDSystematic review and meta-analysis of duplex ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography or computed tomography for surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair. Br J Surg. 2012;99:1514–1523.
16.
WellsGASheaBO’ConnellD, et al. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Paper presented at: The Third Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics; July 3-5, 2000; Oxford, UK.
17.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJPreferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–269.
18.
McWilliamsRGMartinJWhiteDUse of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in follow-up after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1999;10:1107–1114.
19.
WolfYGJohnsonBLHillBBDuplex ultrasound scanning versus computed tomographic angiography for postoperative evaluation of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32:1142–1148.
20.
d’AudiffretADesgrangesPKobeiterDHFollow-up evaluation of endoluminally treated abdominal aortic aneurysms with duplex ultrasonography: validation with computed tomography. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:42–50.
21.
HaulonSLionsCMcFaddenEPProspective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging after endovascular treatment of infrarenal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2001;22:62–69.
22.
CejnaMLoeweCSchoderMMR angiography vs CT angiography in the follow-up of nitinol stent grafts in endoluminal treated aortic aneurysms. Eur Radiol. 2002;12:2443–2350.
23.
McWilliamsRGMartinJWhiteDDetection of endoleak with enhanced ultrasound imaging: comparison with biphasic computed tomography. J Endovasc Ther. 2002;9:170–179.
RamanKGMissig-CarrollNRichardsonTColor-flow duplex ultrasound scan versus computed tomographic scan in the surveillance of endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2003;38:645–651.
26.
BendickPJBovePGLongGWEfficacy of ultrasound scan contrast agents in the non-invasive follow-up of aortic stent grafts. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37:381–385.
27.
AbuRahmaAFWelchCAMullinsBBComputed tomography versus color duplex ultrasound for surveillance of abdominal aortic stent-grafts. J Endovasc Ther. 2005;12:568–573.
28.
van der LaanMJBakkerCJBlankensteijnJDDynamic CE-MRA for endoleak classification after endovascular aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2006;31:130–135.
29.
HenaoEAHodgeMDFelkaiDDContrast-enhanced duplex surveillance after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: improved efficacy using a continuous infusion technique. J Vasc Surg. 2006;43:259–264.
30.
GiannoniMFFanelliFCitoneMContrast ultrasound imaging: the best method to detect type II endoleak during endovascular aneurysm repair follow-up. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2007;6:359–362.
31.
ClevertDAMinaifarNWeckbachSColor duplex ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in comparison to MS-CT in the detection of endoleak following endovascular aneurysm repair. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2008;39:121–132.
32.
IezziRBasilicoRGiancristofaroDContrast-enhanced ultrasound versus color duplex ultrasound imaging in the follow-up of patients after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49:552–560.
33.
WienersGMeyerFHalloulZDetection of type II endoleak after endovascular aortic repair: comparison between magnetic resonance angiography and blood-pool contrast agent and dual-phase computed tomography angiography. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010;33:1135–1142.
34.
Ten BoschJARouwetEVPetersCTContrast-enhanced ultrasound versus computed tomographic angiography for surveillance of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2010;21:638–643.
35.
NagreSBTaylorSMPassmanMAEvaluating outcomes of endoleak discrepancies between computed tomography scan and ultrasound imaging after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 2011;25:94–100.
36.
CantisaniVRicciPGrazhdaniHProspective comparative analysis of colour-Doppler ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance in detecting endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;41:186–192.
37.
PeriniPSediriIMidullaMSingle-centre prospective comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and computed tomography angiography after EVAR. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;42:797–802.
38.
ClevertDAHelckAD’AnastasiMImproving the follow up after EVAR by using ultrasound image fusion of CEUS and MS-CT. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2011;49:91–104.
39.
DemirpolatGOzturkNParildarMDuplex ultrasound evaluation of endoluminally treated aortic aneurysms with emphasis on diameter measurement: a comparison with computed tomography. J Clin Ultrasound. 2011;39:263–269.
40.
GilabertRBuñeschLRealMIEvaluation of abdominal aortic aneurysm after endovascular repair: prospective validation of contrast-enhanced US with a second-generation US contrast agent. Radiology. 2012;264:269–277.
41.
PeriniPSediriIMidullaMContrast-enhanced ultrasound vs. CT angiography in fenestrated EVAR surveillance: a single-center comparison. J Endovasc Ther. 2012;19:648–655.
42.
SommerWHBeckerCRHaackMTime-resolved CT angiography for the detection and classification of endoleaks. Radiology. 2012; 263:917–926.
43.
MottaRRubaltelliLVezzaroRRole of multidetector CT angiography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in redefining follow-up protocols after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Radiol Med. 2012;117:1079–1092.
44.
OikonomouKVentinFCParaskevasKIEarly follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair: is the first postoperative computed tomographic angiography scan necessary?J Endovasc Ther. 2012;19:151–156.
45.
IchihashiSMarugamiNTanakaTPreliminary experience with superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging and comparison with contrast-enhanced computed tomography in endoleak detection after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:66–72.
46.
GürtlerVMSommerWHMeimarakisGA comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging and multislice computed tomography in detecting and classifying endoleaks in the follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58:340–345.
47.
AbbasAHansraniVSedgwickN3D contrast enhanced ultrasound for detecting endoleak following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;47:487–492.
48.
GargiuloMGallittoESerraCCould four-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasound replace computed tomography angiography during follow up of fenestrated endografts? Results of a preliminary experience. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;48:536–542.
49.
AshokeRBrownLCRodwayAColor duplex ultrasonography is insensitive for the detection of endoleak after aortic endografting: a systematic review. J Endovasc Ther. 2005;12:297–305.
50.
MirzaTAKarthikesalingamAJacksonDDuplex ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus computed tomography for the detection of endoleak after EVAR: systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;39:418–428.
51.
ChaerRAGushchinARheeRDuplex ultrasound as the sole long-term surveillance method post-endovascular aneurysm repair: a safe alternative for stable aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2009;49:845–849.
52.
CantisaniVGrazhdaniHClevertDAEVAR: Benefits of CEUS for monitoring stent-graft status. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84:1658–1665.
