OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in comparison to CT angiography (CTA) to identify and classify endoleaks following abdominal aortic aneurism repair with endoprosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 181 patients treated with EVAR, from September 2009 to September 2014, was performed. Patients were evaluated with CEUS, CTA and angiography in the cases requiring treatment. Sac diameter, sac integrity, identification and classification of endoleaks were taken into consideration. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and negative predictive values were considered for each modality of endoleak identification. RESULTS: Forty-two endoleaks (23.2%; type II: 39 cases, type III: 3 cases) were documented. Sensitivity and specificity of CEUS and CT were, respectively, 97.6 and 90.5, 100 and 100%. In two cases, CEUS was able to better classify endoleaks compared to CT. CONCLUSIONS: CEUS accuracy to identify endoleaks following EVAR is similar to CT. CEUS should be considered as an effective modality for the long-term surveillance of EVAR because of its capability to correctly classify endoleaks with no ionizing radiation exposure.
What is the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation of the endoleak of aortic endoprostheses? A comparison between CEUS and CT on a widespread scale
CALLIADA, FABRIZIO;
2016-01-01
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in comparison to CT angiography (CTA) to identify and classify endoleaks following abdominal aortic aneurism repair with endoprosthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of 181 patients treated with EVAR, from September 2009 to September 2014, was performed. Patients were evaluated with CEUS, CTA and angiography in the cases requiring treatment. Sac diameter, sac integrity, identification and classification of endoleaks were taken into consideration. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and negative predictive values were considered for each modality of endoleak identification. RESULTS: Forty-two endoleaks (23.2%; type II: 39 cases, type III: 3 cases) were documented. Sensitivity and specificity of CEUS and CT were, respectively, 97.6 and 90.5, 100 and 100%. In two cases, CEUS was able to better classify endoleaks compared to CT. CONCLUSIONS: CEUS accuracy to identify endoleaks following EVAR is similar to CT. CEUS should be considered as an effective modality for the long-term surveillance of EVAR because of its capability to correctly classify endoleaks with no ionizing radiation exposure.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
