The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using a high-end ultrasound system in the characterization of endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR)
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August 4, 2017
The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using a high-end ultrasound system in the characterization of endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR)
PURPOSE: To evaluate the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using a high-end ultrasound system in the characterization of endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this mono-center study, 41 patients were retrospectively analyzed after being examined using a modern high-end ultrasound system (RS80A with Prestige, Samsung Medison Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea). The maximum diameters of the aneurysms were measured in two planes (right-left and ventral-dorsal). The performance of Color Doppler in comparison to CEUS was evaluated and CEUS was considered as the gold standard in endoleaks detection.
RESULTS: 41 patients were included in the study. Between June and December 2016, mostly male patients (n = 38; 92,7%) were examined, corresponding to the incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the population. Average age was 75±8 years (range 58–100 years). Average diameter of the treated aneurysm-sacs was 5,04±1.5 cm (range 2.7–10.5 cm) in the right-left plane and 4,75±1.36 cm (range 2.8–8.9 cm) in the ventral-dorsal plane. Using CEUS as the gold standard endoleaks could be detected in 28 patients (68,3%) with 13 patients not showing an endoleak after EVAR. Color Doppler showed a sensitivity of 32.1%, a specificity of 92.3%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 90.0% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 38,7% compared to CEUS being the gold standard.
CONCLUSION: CEUS after EVAR using a modern high-end ultrasound system is a fast and cost-effective imaging modality for the detection and follow-up of endoleaks with superior benefits compared to Color Doppler. CEUS remains the initial standard-of-care examination for follow-up.
KentK.C., Clinical practice. Abdominal aortic aneurysms, The New England Journal of Medicine371(22) (2014), 2101–2108.
2.
RübenthalerJ. and ClevertD.-A., Incidental Findings in Ultrasound, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Heidelberg. pp. 1–7.
3.
FilardoG., PowellJ.T., MartinezM.A. and BallardD.J., Surgery for small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms, Cochrane Database Syst Rev2 (2015), CD001835.
4.
PowellJ.T., BrownL.C., ForbesJ.F., FowkesF.G., GreenhalghR.M., RuckleyC.V., et al., Final 12-year follow-up of surgery versus surveillance in the UK Small Aneurysm Trial, The British Journal of Surgery94(6) (2007), 702–708.
5.
LederleF.A., WilsonS.E., JohnsonG.R., ReinkeD.B., LittooyF.N., AcherC.W., et al., Immediate repair compared with surveillance of small abdominal aortic aneurysms, The New England Journal of Medicine346(19) (2002), 1437–1444.
6.
CantisaniV., RicciP., GrazhdaniH., NapoliA., FanelliF., CatalanoC., et al., Prospective comparative analysis of colour-Doppler ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance in detecting endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery: The Official Journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery41(2) (2011), 186–192.
7.
BakkenA.M. and IlligK.A., Long-term follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair: Is ultrasound alone enough?Perspect Vasc Surg Endovasc Ther22(3) (2010), 145–151.
8.
StavropoulosS.W. and CharagundlaS.R., Imaging techniques for detection and management of endoleaks after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair, Radiology243(3) (2007), 641–655.
9.
CaoP., De RangoP., VerziniF. and ParlaniG., Endoleak after endovascular aortic repair: Classification, diagnosis and management following endovascular thoracic and abdominal aortic repair, The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery51(1) (2010), 53–69.
10.
RosenR.J. and GreenR.M., Endoleak management following endovascular aneurysm repair, Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology: JVIR19(6 Suppl) (2008), S37–S43.
11.
MollF.L., PowellJ.T., FraedrichG., VerziniF., HaulonS., WalthamM., et al., Management of abdominal aortic aneurysms clinical practice guidelines of the European society for vascular surgery, European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery: The Official Journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery41(Suppl 1) (2011), S1–S58.
12.
HiattM.D. and RubinG.D., Surveillance for endoleaks: How to detect all of them, Semin Vasc Surg17(4) (2004), 268–278.
13.
GurtlerV.M., SommerW.H., MeimarakisG., KoppR., WeidenhagenR., ReiserM.F., et al., A comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging and multislice computed tomography in detecting and classifying endoleaks in the follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair, Journal of Vascular Surgery58(2) (2013), 340–345.
14.
SommerW.H., BeckerC.R., HaackM., RubinG.D., WeidenhagenR., SchwarzF., et al., Time-resolved CT angiography for the detection and classification of endoleaks, Radiology263(3) (2012), 917–926.
15.
ClevertD.A., HorngA., KoppR., SchickK., MeimarakisG., SommerW.H., et al., Imaging of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), Der Radiologe49(11) (2009), 1033–1039.
16.
RübenthalerJ., ReiserM. and ClevertD.A., Diagnostic vascular ultrasonography with the help of color Doppler and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, Ultrasonography35(4) (2016), 289–301.
17.
PfisterK., SchierlingW., JungE.M., ApfelbeckH., HennerspergerC. and KasprzakP.M., Standardized 2D ultrasound versus 3D/4D ultrasound and image fusion for measurement of aortic aneurysm diameter in follow-up after EVAR, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc62(3) (2016), 249–260.
18.
PiscagliaF., NolsoeC., DietrichC.F., CosgroveD.O., GiljaO.H., Bachmann NielsenM., et al., The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): Update 2011 on non-hepatic applications, Ultraschall in der Medizin33(1) (2012), 33–59.
19.
Anonymous, Ethical guidelines for publication in Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc63(1) (2016), 1–2.
20.
MatsumuraJ.S. and MooreW.S., Clinical consequences of periprosthetic leak after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Endovascular Technologies Investigators, Journal of Vascular Surgery27(4) (1998), 606–613.
21.
MirzaT.A., KarthikesalingamA., JacksonD., WalshS.R., HoltP.J., HayesP.D., et al., Duplex ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus computed tomography for the detection of endoleak after EVAR: Systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis, European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery: The Official Journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery39(4) (2010), 418–428.
22.
KarthikesalingamA., Al-JundiW., JacksonD., BoyleJ.R., BeardJ.D., HoltP.J., et al., Systematic review and meta-analysis of duplex ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography or computed tomography for surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair, The British Journal of Surgery99(11) (2012), 1514–1523.
23.
RübenthalerJ.,
ZimmermannH.,
ArmbrusterM.,
Müller-PeltzerK.,
BognerF.,
ReiserM., et al., Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Follow-Up of Endoleaks after Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR), Ultraschall in der Medizin2017. [ePub ahead of Print]
