Risk of Radiation Exposure during Endovascular Aortic Repair

Early experience with bridging stent graft deployment without sheath support in branched and fenestrated endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

To assess the early experience with modified version of simplified bare-wire target vessel (SMART) technique, implying delivery of bridging stent grafts without historically established sheath support, and to compare its outcome to standard endovascular aortic repair procedures with fenestrated/branched devices.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 102 consecutive patients treated with fenestrated/branched devices from January 2020 to December 2022 was undertaken. The study population was divided into three groups-a sheath group (SG), SMART group, and nonsheath group (NSG). Primary end points were radiation exposure (dose-area product), fluoroscopy time, dose of contrast agent, operation time, and incidence of intraoperative target vessel (TV) complications and additional procedures. Freedom from secondary TV related reinterventions at the three follow-up phases were defined as secondary end points.

RESULTS

A total of 183 TVs (38.8% visceral arteries [VA]; 56.3% renal arteries [RA]) in the SG, 36 TVs (44.4% VA, 55.6% RA) in the SMART group, and 168 TVs (47.6% VA; 50% RA) in the NSG were accessed. The mean number of fenestrations and bridging stent grafts was equally distributed in all three groups. The SMART group only included cases treated with fenestrated devices. The dose-area product was significantly lower in the SMART (median, 203 Gy × cm2; interquartile range [IQR], 179-365 Gy × cm2) and NSG (median, 340 Gy × cm2; IQR, 220-651 Gy × cm2) groups vs the SG (median, 464 Gy × cm2; IQR, 267-871 Gy × cm2; P = .007). Operation time was also significantly lower in the NSG (median, 265 minutes; IQR, 221-337 minutes) and SMART (median, 292 minutes; IQR, 234-351 minutes) groups vs the SG (median, 326 minutes; IQR, 277-375 minutes; P = .004), respectively. Intraoperative TV-related complications were most frequently observed in the SG (9/183 TVs; P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

This study reports the outcomes of three currently available TV stenting approaches. Previously reported SMART technique, and its modified version (NSG) proved to be a safe alternative to historically established TV stenting technique with sheath support (SG).

Impact of the underlying aortic pathology on postimplantation syndrome after endovascular thoracic aortic repair

BACKGROUND

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the treatment option of choice for almost all pathologies of the descending thoracic aorta. The aim of the present study was to determine the impact of aortic pathology on the occurrence of postimplantation syndrome (PIS) after TEVAR.

METHODS

Seventy-four patients undergoing TEVAR for aortic dissection (TAD, 25), aortic aneurysm (TAA, 26), and aortic rupture or perforated ulcer (TAR/PAU, 23) were included in this retrospective study. The clinical outcome measures were persistent inflammation at hospital discharge and in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

PIS was assessed in 22.97% of all patients, predominantly in the TAD group (P=0.03). CRP increased after TEVAR (156.6±94.5, P<0.001; 108.1±57.7, P<0.01 and 117.8±70.4, P<0.05) vs. baseline (58.1±77.5, 31.94±52.1 and 31.9±52.1 mg/L, in TAD, TAA and TAR/PAU, respectively) and this increase was more accentuated in TAD group (P<0.05). Stent-length was similar in all groups (P=0.226) but correlated with postoperative CRP only in TAD (R=0.576, P=0.013). Fresh parietal thrombus correlated with CRP (R=0.4507, P=0.0005) and is (OR=1.0883, P=0.0001), together with the pathology of aortic dissection (OR=6.2268, P=0.0288), a predictor of PIS after TEVAR. Whereas mortality (5.4%) did not correlate with PIS (P=0.38) either with aortic pathology (P=0.225), hospital stay after TEVAR was significantly prolonged by PIS (P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Aortic dissection is associated with more inflammation after TEVAR than aortic aneurysm, rupture or perforated ulcer, with the amount of fresh parietal thrombus playing the most significant role in the occurrence of PIS. Importantly, PIS prolongs hospital stay but not mortality after TEVAR.

Monoplane versus biplane fluoroscopy in patients undergoing fenestrated/branched endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) with fenestrated (F-EVAR) or branched (B-EVAR) endografts represents an indispensable tool of modern patient care in vascular surgery. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the center's initial experience of F/B-EVAR procedures performed under biplane angiography guidance compared with a historical control group.

METHODS

From January 2020 to March 2022, 80 consecutive patients underwent F/B-EVAR under general anesthesia at a single institution. As from January 2021, the deployment of complex stent grafts was performed using an alternative intraoperative imaging modality-a biplane fluoroscopy and angiography. The cohort was divided into monoplane (MPA) and biplane (BPA) groups according to the imaging modality applied. The end points were operation time, fluoroscopy time, radiation exposure, dose of contrast agent, and technical success.

RESULTS

The MPA group included 59 patients (78% male; median age; 74 years; interquartile range [IQR], 66-78 years) and the BPA group 21 patients (85.7% males; median age, 75 years; IQR, 69-79 years). Operation time (median, 320 minutes; IQR, 266-376 minutes) versus (median, 275 minutes; IQR, 216-333 minutes) was significantly lower in the BPA group (P = .006). The median fluoroscopy time (median, 82 minutes; IQR, 57-110 minutes vs median, 68 minutes; IQR, 54-92 minutes), contrast agent volume applied (median, 220 mL; IQR, 179-250 mL vs median, 200 mL; IQR, 170-250 mL), and radiation dose (dose-area product, median, 413 Gy × cm²; IQR, 249-736 Gy × cm²; vs median, 542 Gy × cm²; IQR, 196-789 Gy × cm²) were similar in both groups. Technical success of 96.6% (57/59 cases) versus 100% (21/21 cases) could be achieved in MPA and BPA group, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

F/B-EVAR procedures performed under BPA guidance were associated with a significant decrease in operation time.

Evaluation of Safety of Overhead Upper Extremity Positioning During Fenestrated-Branched Endovascular Repair of Thoracoabdominal Aortic Aneurysms

PURPOSE

Peripheral nerve and brachial plexus injury can occur from compression or stretching during positioning for operative procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of overhead upper extremity positioning to optimize imaging during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic repair (FB-EVAR) of pararenal (PRA) and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs).

METHODS

Forty-four consecutive patients enrolled in a prospective non-randomized study underwent FB-EVAR with overhead upper extremity positioning. Patients underwent intra-operative neuromonitoring of upper and lower extremities and neurological examination prior to discharge and at 2 months following the procedure. End points were peripheral or brachial plexus nerve injury, quality of lateral projection and cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and major adverse event (MAEs).

RESULTS

There were 28 (64%) male patients with mean age of 74 ± 8 years treated for 10 PRAs (23%) and 34 (78%) TAAAs. Mean body mass index was 29 ± 7 kg/m², with 17 obese patients (39%). Open surgical upper extremity access was used in 19 patients (43%). Three patients (16%) had access-related complications, all focal brachial artery dissections treated by patch angioplasty. Two patients (5%) developed upper extremity changes in neuromonitoring, which immediately resolved with repositioning of the upper extremity. Technical success was 95%. Lateral projection and rotational CBCT were feasible in all patients with satisfactory imaging quality for catheterization and stenting of the celiac axis and superior mesenteric artery. There was one mortality (2%) at 30 days, and six patients (14%) had MAEs. There were no upper extremity neurological injuries.

CONCLUSION

Overhead upper extremity position allows optimal imaging on lateral projections and rotational CBCT during FB-EVAR. There were no upper extremity neurological injuries in this study.

First-in-Human Clinical Application of the Medyria TrackCath System in Endovascular Repair of Complex Aortic Aneurysms (ACCESS Trial): A Prospective Multicenter Single-Arm Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

The Medyria TrackCath Catheter (MedTCC) is an innovative, thermal convection-based blood flow velocity (BFV) tracking catheter that may be used during complex aortic endovascular procedures for identification and catheterization of target orifices. The ACCESS Trial analyzes the safety and performance of the MedTCC for targeted vessel catheterization to generally evaluate the feasibility of thermal convection-based BFV.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a first-in-human, proof-of-concept, prospective single-arm multicenter clinical trial between March 2018 and February 2019 in patients who underwent endovascular aortic procedures at 4 high-volume centers. During these procedures, the MedTCC was advanced over a guidewire through the femoral access. The D-shape was enfolded in the reno-visceral part of the aorta and target orifices were identified and catheterized with a guidewire via the side port of the MedTCC through BFV tracking. BFV measurements were performed at baseline (Baseline-BFV), alignment to the orifice (Orifice-BFV), and following catheterization (Confirmation-BFV) to prove correct identification and catheterization of target orifices. The procedural success rate, the catheterization success rate, procedure-related parameters, and (serious) adverse events ((S)AE) during the follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients were included in the safety group (SG) and 26 in the performance group (PG). The procedural success rate was 89% (PG), the MedTCC catheterization success rate was 98% (PG). The MedTCC reliably measured BFV changes indicated by significant differences in BFV between Baseline-BFV and Orifice-BFV (p<0.05). Median (interquartile range; IQR) fluoroscopy time per orifice was 5.0 (1.5-8.5) minutes [total surgery 49 (26-74) minutes], median (IQR) contrast agent used per orifice was 1.0 (0-5.0) mL [total surgery 80 (40-100) mL], and median (IQR) MedTCC-based procedural time was 3.0 (2.0-6.0) minutes. There was no device-related SAE.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACCESS Trial suggests that BFV measurement allows for reliable target orifice identification and catheterization. The use of MedTCC is safe and generates short fluoroscopy time and low contrast agent use, which in turn might facilitate complex endovascular procedures.

Patient radiation dose from x-ray guided endovascular aneurysm repair: a Monte Carlo approach using voxel phantoms and detailed exposure information

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a well-established minimally invasive technique that relies on x-ray guidance to introduce a stent through the femoral artery and manipulate it into place. The aim of this study was to estimate patient organ and effective doses from EVAR procedures using anatomically realistic computational phantoms and detailed exposure information from radiation dose structured reports (RDSR). Methods: Lookup tables of conversion factors relating kerma area product (P_KA) to organ doses for 49 different beam angles were produced using Monte Carlo simulations (MCNPX2.7) with International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) adult male and female voxel phantoms for EVAR procedures of varying complexity (infra-renal, fenestrated/branched and thoracic EVAR). Beam angle specific correction factors were calculated to adjust doses according to x-ray energy. A MATLAB function was written to find the appropriate conversion factor in the lookup table for each exposure described in the RDSR, perform energy corrections and multiply by the respective exposure P_KA. Using this approach, organ doses were estimated for 183 EVAR procedures in which RDSRs were available. A number of simplified dose estimation methodologies were also investigated for situations in which RDSR data are not available. Results: Mean estimated bone marrow doses were 57 (range: 2-247), 86 (2-328) and 54 (8-250) mGy for infra-renal, fenestrated/branched and thoracic EVAR, respectively. Respective effective doses were 27 (1-208), 54 (1-180) and 37 (5-167) mSv. Dose estimates using non-individualised, average conversion factors, along with those produced using the alternative Monte Carlo code PCXMC, yielded reasonably similar results overall, though variation for individual procedures could exceed 100% for some organs. In conclusion, radiation doses from x-ray guided endovascular aneurysm repairs are potentially high, though this must be placed in the context of the life sparing nature and high success rate for this procedure.

Editor's Choice - Comprehensive Literature Review of Radiation Levels During Endovascular Aortic Repair in Cathlabs and Operating Theatres

OBJECTIVE

Occupational exposure is a growing concern among the endovascular specialist community. Several types of imaging equipment are available, such as mobile C arms or hybrid rooms, and some have been shown to deliver higher levels of radiation. A literature review was conducted to identify studies reporting dose data during standard (EVAR) and complex abdominal aortic endovascular repair (fenestrated/branched EVAR [F/BEVAR]).

METHODS

A search of the MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases was performed by two independent investigators using the medical subject heading terms "aortic aneurysms", "radiation", and "humans" over a search period of 10 years. Studies with full text available in English and reporting radiation data independently from the imaging equipment type were included. Experimental studies were excluded.

RESULTS

The lowest dose-area product levels during EVAR and F/BEVAR were identified in hybrid rooms, while the highest were with fixed systems. When adherence to the as low as reasonably achievable principles was stipulated by the authors, dose reports tended to be among the lowest. Several studies, especially of F/BEVAR, report concerning levels of radiation for both patients and staff.

CONCLUSION

Modern imaging equipment type, team involvement with radiation management, and the support of recent imaging technologies such as fusion help to reduce the dose delivered during standard and complex EVAR. Investment in modern imaging technology should be considered in every centre providing endovascular management of aortic aneurysms.

The Effects of Gender on Radiation Dose during Fenestrated Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Female gender is considered a risk factor for worse perioperative outcomes after fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR). We hypothesized that women would have more unfavorable anatomy, increasing case complexity and leading to higher radiation doses. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of gender on radiation dose during FEVARs.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study was performed from 1/2015 to 2/2018. For patient data, linear model and stepwise variable selection algorithm were used. All dose measurements were log transformed before analysis. Significance level for parameter estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were all transformed back using an exponential function. P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

RESULTS

A total of 169 FEVARs (45 women) were performed on a Philips Allura Xper FD 20 fluoroscopy system equipped with clarity technology. There was no difference in body mass index (BMI) or operative time between genders, P = 0.9. The median reference air kerma for women was significantly lower than that for men (1,672 mGy vs. 2,496 mGy), P < 0.001. Women had on average a 28% total dose reduction after controlling for BMI, number of vessels fenestrated, operative time, and type of device, P < 0.001. The median fluorography and fluoroscopy doses for women were significantly lower than those for men (973 mGy vs. 1,401 mGy and 659 mGy vs. 1,008 mGy), resulting in a 24% fluorography dose reduction and a 38% fluoroscopy dose reduction for women, P < 0.001.

CONCLUSIONS

FEVARs can be performed successfully in women with comparatively lower radiation doses.

Dual fluoroscopy with live-image digital zooming significantly reduces patient and operating staff radiation during fenestrated-branched endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

Fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repair (F/B-EVAR) is a complex procedure that generates high radiation doses. Magnification aids in vessel cannulation but increases radiation. The aim of the study was to compare radiation doses to patients and operating room staff from two fluoroscopy techniques, standard magnification vs dual fluoroscopy with live-image digital zooming during F/B-EVAR.

METHODS

An observational, prospective, single-center study of F/B-EVAR procedures using Philips Allura XperFD20 equipment (Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) was performed during a 42-month period. Intravascular ultrasound, three-dimensional fusion, and extreme collimation were used in all procedures. Intraoperative live-image processing was performed with two imaging systems: standard magnification in 123 patients (81%) and dual fluoroscopy with live-image digital zooming in 28 patients (18%). In the latter, the live "processed" zoomed images are displayed on examination displays and live images are displayed on reference displays. The reference air kerma was collected for each case and represents patient dose. Operating staff personal dosimetry was collected using the DoseAware system (Philips Healthcare). Patient and staff radiation doses were compared using nonparametric tests.

RESULTS

Mean age was 71.6 ± 11.4 years. The median body mass index was 27 kg/m² (interquartile range [IQR], 24.4-30.6 kg/m²) and was the same for both groups. Procedures performed with dual fluoroscopy with digital zooming demonstrated significantly lower median patient (1382 mGy [IQR, 999-2045 mGy] vs 2458 mGy [IQR, 1706-3767 mGy]; P < .01) and primary operator radiation doses (101 μSv [IQR, 34-235 μSv] vs 266 μSv [IQR, 104-583 μSv]; P < .01) compared with standard magnification. Similar significantly reduced radiation doses were recorded for first assistant, scrub nurse, and anesthesia staff in procedures performed with dual fluoroscopy. According to device design, procedures performed with four-fenestration/branch devices generated higher operator radiation doses (262 μSv [IQR, 116.5-572 μSv] vs 171 μSv [IQR, 44-325 μSv]; P < .01) compared with procedures with three or fewer fenestration/branches. Among the most complex design (four-vessel), operator radiation dose was significantly lower with digital zooming compared with standard magnification (128.5 μSv [IQR, 70.5-296 μSv] vs 309 μSv [IQR, 150-611 μSv]; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Current radiation doses to patients and operating personnel are within acceptable limits; however, dual fluoroscopy with live-image digital zooming results in dramatically lower radiation doses compared with the standard image processing with dose-dependent magnification. Operator radiation doses were reduced in half during procedures performed with more complex device designs when digital zooming was used.

[Monitoring Radiation Exposure During Surgery with Real Time Measurements: Opportunities and Limitations]

BACKGROUND

In Germany, staff exposed to radiation is monitored with official individual dosimeters. Commercially available real-time dosimeters (RTD) can be used as radiation protection dosimeters. They are worn over the apron and display the radiation dose being measured at the desired location at intervals of one second. These real-time radiation exposure measurements enable the surgical staff to take suitable measures to reduce the radiation during the operation. The objective of our study was to monitor the accuracy of the measurements taken from the real-time dosimeter and to determine the radiation scatter for individual members of the surgical staff.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective measurements of the operating team's exposure to radiation were carried out using a real-time dosimeter system in an operating room for vascular surgery equipped with a C-arm. Firstly the calibration of the RTD at the operating table was checked using a water phantom. Subsequently, measurements were taken during vascular interventions and surgery.

RESULTS

When calibrated, the values of the individual RTD revealed internal significant deviations, thus a corrective factor was calculated for each RTD. In total 55 interventions on 53 patients were studied. The average dose for the RTD of the surgeon during endovascular aortic repair (n = 11) amounted to 9 ± 9 µSv (range 3.6 - 50 µSv) and during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (n = 6) 35 ± 49 µSv (3.8 - 190.3 µSv). In the case of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty of the pelvis and of the lower extremities (n = 20), the average dose for the RTD of the surgeon was 7 ± 7 µSv (1.2 - 35 µSv) and for the angiographies of the lower extremities (n = 12) at 2 ± 3 µSv (0.2 - 15.9 µSv). The real-time dosimetry provided data which contributed to the operating team changing their behaviour in the operating room.

DISCUSSION

Since the dose values determined by the official dosimetry are generally very low, it is not possible to optimise the behaviour and thus the radiation protection using these dose values. This can be achieved with the radiation protection dosimeter and the dose reference levels can be defined in the new Radiation Protection Ordinance (StrlSchV). Instant feedback of the current dose rate at the place where the RTD is worn can lead to both the individual adjusting his or her personal behaviour and to optimisation of the individual's radiation protection. It is only possible to compare the measured data obtained with the RTD when calibration is carried out in advance.

Peroperative Intravascular Ultrasound for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair versus Peroperative Angiography: A Pilot Study in Fit Patients with Favorable Anatomy

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) assistance for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) to standard assistance by angiography.

METHODS

From June 2015 to June 2017, 173 consecutive patients underwent EVAR. In this group, 69 procedures were IVUS-assisted with X-ray exposure limited to completion angiography for safety purposes because an IVUS probe does not yet incorporate a duplex probe (group A), and 104 were angiography-assisted procedures (group B). All IVUS-assisted procedures were performed by vascular surgeons with basic duplex ultrasound (DUS) training. The primary study endpoints were mean radiation dose, duration of fluoroscopy, amount of contrast media administered, procedure-related outcomes, and renal clearance expressed as the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) before and after the procedure. Secondary endpoints were operative mortality, morbidity, and arterial access complications.

RESULTS

Mean duration of fluoroscopy time was significantly lower for IVUS-assisted procedures (24 ± 15 min vs. 40 ± 30 min for angiography-assisted procedures, P < 0.01). Moreover, mean radiation dose (Air KERMA) was significantly lower in IVUS-assisted procedures (76m Gy [44-102] vs. 131 mGy [58-494]), P < 0.01. IVUS-assisted procedures required fewer contrast media than standard angiography-assisted procedures (60 ± 20 mL vs. 120 ± 40 mL, P < 0.01). The mean duration of the procedure was comparable in the two groups (120 ± 30 min vs. 140 ± 30 min, P = 0.07). No difference in renal clearance before and after the procedure was observed in either of the two groups (99.0 ± 4/97.8 ± 2 mL/min in group A and 98.0 ± 3/97.6 ± 5 mL/min in group B) (P = 0.28). The mean length of follow-up was nine months (6-30 months). No postoperative mortality, morbidity, or arterial access complications occurred. No type 1 endoleak was observed. Early type II endoleaks were observed in 21 patients (11%), 12 in the angiography-assisted group (11%) and nine in the IVUS-assisted group (12%). They were not associated with sac enlargement ≥5 mm diameter and therefore did not require any additional treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with standard angiography-assisted EVAR, IVUS significantly reduces renal load with contrast media, fluoroscopy time, and radiation dose while preserving endograft deployment efficiency. Confirmation from a large prospective study with improved IVUS probes will be required before IVUS-assisted EVAR alone can become standard practice.

Fusion Imaging to Guide Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair (TEVAR): A Randomized Comparison of Two Methods, 2D/3D Versus 3D/3D Image Fusion

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of two-dimensional (2D) versus three-dimensional (3D) image fusion for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) image guidance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between December 2016 and March 2018, all eligible patients who underwent TEVAR were prospectively included in a single-center study. Image fusion methods (2D/3D or 3D/3D) were randomly assigned to guide each TEVAR and compared in terms of accuracy, dose area product (DAP), volume of contrast medium injected, fluoroscopy time and procedure time.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients were prospectively included; 18 underwent 2D/3D and 14 underwent 3D/3D TEVAR. The 3D/3D method allowed more accurate positioning of the aortic mask on top of the fluoroscopic images (proximal landing zone error vector: 1.7 ± 3.3 mm) than was achieved by the 2D/3D method (6.1 ± 6.1 mm; p = 0.03). The 3D/3D image fusion method was associated with significantly lower DAP than the 2D/3D method (50.5 ± 30.1 Gy cm² for 3D/3D vs. 99.5 ± 79.1 Gy cm² for 2D/3D; p = 0.03). The volume of contrast medium injected was significantly lower for the 3D/3D method than for the 2D/3D method (50.6 ± 22.9 ml vs. 98.4 ± 47.9 ml; p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Higher image fusion accuracy and lower contrast volume and irradiation dose were observed for 3D/3D image fusion than for 2D/3D during TEVAR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, Randomized trial.

Radiation exposure in an endovascular aortic aneurysm repair program after introduction of a hybrid operating theater

BACKGROUND

A hybrid operating theater (HOT) enables optimal image quality, improved ergonomics, and excellent sterility for complex endovascular and hybrid procedures. We hypothesize that the commissioning of a new HOT involves a learning curve. It is unclear how steep the learning curve of these advanced HOTs is. The main purpose of this research was to evaluate radiation exposure parameters in a new HOT for a team of vascular surgeons experienced with infrarenal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures in a conventional operating room with a mobile C-arm. In addition, a comparison of the dose-area product (DAP) achieved in this study and in the literature was made.

METHODS

Before commissioning of the HOT, four vascular surgeons completed a comprehensive HOT training program. From the commissioning of the HOT, clinical and procedural data for all consecutive acute and elective patients treated with EVAR were retrospectively collected for a period of 18 months (January 2016-June 2017). A literature review was conducted of the dose-area product in EVAR procedures performed with a dedicated fixed system or mobile C-arm to analyze how this study performed compared with the literature.

RESULTS

In the 18-month study period, 77 patients were treated with EVAR (59 electively and 18 acutely), from whom the data were obtained. There was no significant change in radiation exposure parameters over time. From the commissioning of the HOT, EVAR procedures were performed with radiation exposure parameters similar to those of studies found in experienced vascular centers using fixed systems.

CONCLUSIONS

Concerning radiation exposure parameters, the commissioning of a new HOT was not accompanied by a learning curve. Radiation exposure parameters achieved in this study were similar to those of studies from experienced and dedicated vascular centers.

Correlations Between Branch Vessel Catheterization and Procedural Complexity in Fenestrated and Branched Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Introduction:

The use of fenestrated and branched endovascular technologies in complex aortic aneurysm repair (F/BEVAR) is increasing, with a trend toward using longer sealing zones and incorporating more target vessels. Successful aneurysm exclusion and prevention of long-term treatment failure need to be balanced against the increased complexity of more extensive procedures. The aim of this study was to analyze relationships between the number of catheterized vessels and multiple operative variables as a means for evaluating procedural complexity.

Methods:

Operative data from consecutive F/BEVAR procedures performed at a single center from 2012 to 2015 were analyzed. An equal number of EVAR procedures, randomly selected, from this period were also analyzed. Only intact aneurysms were included. Complex aneurysms were grouped based on the required number of target vessel catheterization. Ten procedural variables, categorized as perioperative, postoperative, and radiologic-related, were compared. Pearson correlation analysis and regression analysis were performed. The correlation coefficients, r, were classified using Cohen boundaries, r ≥ 0.5 indicating a strong relationship.

Results:

There were 63 EVAR, 40 FEVAR, and 22 BEVAR procedures. There was no significant difference in patient comorbidities between conventional EVAR and complex procedure groups. The complex procedures included 23 two-vessel, 20 three-vessel, and 19 four-vessel catheterizations. Strong linear relationships between the number of branch vessel catheterizations and the following variables were identified: accumulated skin dose ( r = .504), contrast volume ( r = .652), fluoroscopy duration ( r = .598), number of angiography series ( r = .650), anesthesiology duration ( r = .742), procedure duration ( r = .554), and total length of stay ( r = .533).

Conclusion:

The complexity of FEVAR and BEVAR procedures reveals strong correlations between multiple peri- and postoperative variables. These exposures and risks should be borne in mind when considering treatment of complex abdominal aortic aneurysms as well as long-term clinical outcomes.

Challenges assessing radiation risk in image-guided treatments-implications on optimisation of radiological protection

The present work explores challenges when assessing organ dose and effective dose concerning image-guided treatments. During these treatments considerable x-ray imaging is employed using technically advanced angiographic x-ray equipment. Thus, the radiation dose to organs and the related radiation risk are relatively difficult to assess. This has implications on the optimisation process, in which assessing radiation dose is one important part. In this study, endovascular aortic repair treatments were investigated. Organ dose and effective dose were assessed using Monte Carlo calculations together with a detailed specification of the exposure situation and patient size. The resulting normalised organ dose and effective dose with respect to kerma-area product for patient sizes and radiation qualities representative for the patient group were evaluated. The variability and uncertainty were investigated and their possible impact on optimisation of radiation protection was discussed. Exposure parameters, source to detector distances etc varied between treatments and also varied between image acquisitions during one treatment. Thus the derived normalised organ dose and effective dose exhibited a large range of values depending greatly on used exposure parameters and patient configuration. The derived normalised values for effective dose varied approximately between 0.05 and 0.30 mSv per Gy·cm² when taking patient sizes and exposure parameters into consideration, the values for organ doses exhibited even larger variation. The study shows a possible systematic error for derived organ doses and effective dose up to a factor of 7 if detailed exposure or patient characteristics are not known and/or not taken into consideration. The intra-treatment variability was also substantial and the normalised dose values varied up to a factor of 2 between image acquisitions during one treatment. The study shows that the use of conversion factors that are not adapted to the clinic can cause the radiation dose to be exaggerated or underestimated considerably. A conclusion from the present study is that the systematic error could be large and should be estimated together with random errors. A large uncertainty makes it difficult to detect true differences in radiation dose between methods and technology-a prerequisite for optimising radiation protection for image-guided treatments.

Optimizing imaging and reducing radiation exposure during complex aortic endovascular procedures

Improvements in endovascular technologies and development of custom-made fenestrated and branched endografts currently allow clinicians to treat complex aortic lesions such as thoraco-abdominal and aortic arch aneurysms once treatable with open repair only. These advances are leading to an increase in the complexity of endovascular procedures which can cause long operation times and high levels of radiation exposure. This in turn places pressure on the vascular surgery community to display more superior interventional skills and radiological practices. Advanced imaging technology in this context represents a strong pillar in the treatment toolbox for delivering the best care at the lowest risk level. Delivering the best patient care while managing the radiation and iodine contrast media risks, especially in frail and renal impaired populations, is the challenge aortic surgeons are facing. Modern hybrid rooms are equipped with a wide range of new imaging applications such as fusion imaging and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). If these technologies contribute to reducing radiation, they can be complex and intimidating to master. The aim of this review is to discuss the fundamentals of good radiological practices and to describe the various imaging tools available to the aortic surgeon, both those available today and those we anticipate will be available in the near future, from equipment to software, to perform safe and efficient complex endovascular procedures.

Patient and operating room staff radiation dose during fenestrated/branched endovascular aneurysm repair using premanufactured devices

INTRODUCTION

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is the highest radiation dose procedure performed by vascular surgeons. We sought to characterize the radiation dose to patients and staff during FEVAR procedures with different premanufactured devices.

METHODS

A single-center prospective study of FEVARs was performed over 24 months. Three FEVAR devices were included: off-the-shelf (OTS; t-Branch, p-Branch), Zenith Fenestrated (ZFen), and investigational custom-made devices (CMDs). Radiation doses to the surgeon, trainee, anesthesiologist, and scrub/circulating nurses were measured using a personal dosimetry system (DoseAware, Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). Procedure type, patient body mass index (BMI), reference air kerma (RAK), and kerma area product (KAP) were recorded. RAK and KAP were corrected for BMI based on an exponential fit of fluoroscopy dose rate and the dose per radiographic frame. Operator dose was corrected for BMI by the ratio of corrected to actual KAP. A one-sided Wilcox rank-sum test was used to compare personnel radiation doses, RAKs, and KAPs between procedure types. Statistical significance was set at P ≤ .05.

RESULTS

There were 80 FEVARs performed by a single surgeon on a Philips Allura XperFD20 fluoroscopy system equipped with Clarity technology. Average BMI was 27 kg/m². Sixty CMDs (36 four-, 21 three-, and 3 two-vessel fenestrations), 11 ZFens (8 three- and 3 two-vessel fenestrations), and 9 OTS devices (4 p-Branch, 5 t-Branch) were included. ZFens had significantly lower patient (1800 mGy vs 2950 mGy; P = .004), operator (120 μSv vs 370 μSv; P = .004), assistant (60 μSv vs 210 μSv; P = .003), circulator (10 μSv vs 30 μSv; P = .049), and scrub nurse dose (10 μSv vs 40 μSv; P = .02) compared with CMDs. OTS devices had significantly lower operator (220 μSv vs 370 μSv; P = .04), assistant (110 μSv vs 210 μSv; P = .02), and circulator doses (4 μSv vs 30 μSv; P = .001) compared with CMDs. Four-vessel fenestrated devices had significantly higher patient dose (3020 mGy) compared with three-vessel FEVARs (2670 mGy; P = .03) and two-vessel FEVARs (1600 mGy; P = .0007), and significantly higher operator dose (440 μSv) compared with three-vessel FEVARs (170 μSv; P = .0005). Patient dose was lowest with ZFens. Operating room personnel dose was lower with ZFens and OTS devices compared with CMDs. Four-vessel fenestrations required significantly more radiation compared with those involving three-vessel fenestrations; however, the dose increase was only 12% and should not preclude operators from extending coverage, if anatomically required.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, patient and personnel radiation doses during FEVAR with all devices were within acceptable limits and lower in our series than previously reported.

Computed tomography angiography-fluoroscopy image fusion allows visceral vessel cannulation without angiography during fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) is an evolving technique to treat juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Catheterization of visceral and renal vessels after the deployment of the fenestrated main body device is often challenging, usually requiring additional fluoroscopy and multiple digital subtraction angiograms. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility and accuracy of a computed tomography angiography (CTA)-fluoroscopy image fusion technique in guiding visceral vessel cannulation during FEVAR.

METHODS

Between August 2014 and September 2016, all consecutive patients who underwent FEVAR at our institution using image fusion guidance were included. Preoperative CTA images were fused with intraoperative fluoroscopy after coregistering with non-contrast-enhanced cone beam computed tomography (syngo 3D3D image fusion; Siemens Healthcare, Forchheim, Germany). The ostia of the visceral vessels were electronically marked on CTA images (syngo iGuide Toolbox) and overlaid on live fluoroscopy to guide vessel cannulation after fenestrated device deployment. Clinical utility of image fusion was evaluated by assessing the number of dedicated angiograms required for each visceral or renal vessel cannulation and the use of optimized C-arm angulation. Accuracy of image fusion was evaluated from video recordings by three raters using a binary qualitative assessment scale.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients (17 men; mean age, 73.8 years) underwent FEVAR during the study period for juxtarenal AAA (17), pararenal AAA (6), and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (3). Video recordings of fluoroscopy from 19 cases were available for review and assessment. A total of 46 vessels were cannulated; 38 of 46 (83%) of these vessels were cannulated without angiography but based only on image fusion guidance: 9 of 11 superior mesenteric artery cannulations and 29 of 35 renal artery cannulations. Binary qualitative assessment showed that 90% (36/40) of the virtual ostia overlaid on live fluoroscopy were accurate. Optimized C-arm angulations were achieved in 35% of vessel cannulations (0/9 for superior mesenteric artery cannulation, 12/25 for renal arteries).

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative CTA-fluoroscopy image fusion guidance during FEVAR is a valuable and accurate tool that allows visceral and renal vessel cannulation without the need of dedicated angiograms, thus avoiding additional injection of contrast material and radiation exposure. Further refinements, such as accounting for device-induced aortic deformation and automating the image fusion workflow, will bolster this technology toward optimal routine clinical use.

Radiation-Induced DNA Damage in Operators Performing Endovascular Aortic Repair

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background:

Radiation exposure during fluoroscopically guided interventions such as endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) is a growing concern for operators. This study aimed to measure DNA damage/repair markers in operators perfoming EVAR.

Methods:

Expression of the DNA damage/repair marker, γ-H2AX and DNA damage response marker, phosphorylated ataxia telangiectasia mutated (pATM), were quantified in circulating lymphocytes in operators during the peri-operative period of endovascular (infrarenal, branched, and fenestrated) and open aortic repair using flow cytometry. These markers were separately measured in the same operators but this time wearing leg lead shielding in addition to upper body protection and compared with those operating with unprotected legs. Susceptibility to radiation damage was determined by irradiating operators’ blood in vitro.

Results:

γ-H2AX and pATM levels increased significantly in operators immediately after branched endovascular aortic repair/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (P<0.0003 for both). Only pATM levels increased after infrarenal endovascular aortic repair (P<0.04). Expression of both markers fell to baseline in operators after 24 hours (P<0.003 for both). There was no change in γ-H2AX or pATM expression after open repair. Leg protection abrogated γ-H2AX and pATM response after branched endovascular aortic repair/fenestrated endovascular aortic repair. The expression of γ-H2AX varied significantly when operators’ blood was exposed to the same radiation dose in vitro (P<0.0001).

Conclusions:

This is the first study to detect an acute DNA damage response in operators performing fluoroscopically guided aortic procedures and highlights the protective effect of leg shielding. Defining the relationship between this response and cancer risk may better inform safe levels of chronic low-dose radiation exposure.

Investigation of reference levels and radiation dose associated with abdominal EVAR (endovascular aneurysm repair) procedures across several European Centres

OBJECTIVES

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is considered the treatment of choice for abdominal aortic aneurysms with suitable anatomy. In order to improve radiation safety, European Directive (2013/59) requires member states to implement diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) in radio-diagnostic and interventional procedures. This study aimed to determine local DRLs for EVAR across five European centres and identify an interim European DRL, which currently remains unestablished.

METHODS

Retrospective data was collected for 180 standard EVARs performed between January 2014 and July 2015 from five specialist centres in Ireland (n=2) and Italy (n=3). Data capture included: air kerma-area product (P_KA), total air kerma at the reference point (K_a,r), fluoroscopic time (FT), number of acquisitions, frame rate of acquisition, type of acquisition, patient height, weight, and gender.

RESULTS

The mean values for each site A, B, C, D, and E were: P_KAs of 4343 ± 994 μGym², 18,200 ± 2141 μGym², 11,423 ± 1390 μGym², 7796 ± 704 μGym², 31,897 ± 5798 μGym²; FTs of 816 ± 92 s, 950 ± 150 s, 708 ± 70 s, 972 ± 61 s, 827 ± 118 s; and number of acquisitions of 6.72 ± 0.56, 10.38 ± 1.54, 4.74 ± 0.19, 5.64 ± 0.36, 7.28 ± 0.65, respectively. The overall pooled 75th percentile P_KA was 15,849 μGym².

CONCLUSION

Local reference levels were identified. The pooled data has been used to establish an interim European DRL for EVAR procedures.

KEY POINTS

• Abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) requires the use of ionising radiation. • EVAR is a minimally invasive procedure for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. • Diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) are used to monitor patient radiation exposure. • Radiation dose data was collected from five European centres for EVAR procedures. • Local DRLs have been determined and an interim European DRL is proposed.

Fluoroscopy time is not accurate as a surrogate for radiation exposure

Objective

The Food and Drug Administration and the Vascular Quality Initiative still utilize fluoroscopy time as a surrogate marker for procedural radiation exposure. This study demonstrates that fluoroscopy time does not accurately represent radiation exposure and that dose area product and air kerma are more appropriate measures.

Methods

Lower extremity endovascular interventions ( N = 145) between 2013 and 2015 performed at an academic medical center on a Siemens Artis-Zee floor mounted c-arm were identified. Data was collected from the summary sheet after every case. Scatter plots with Pearson correlation coefficients were created. A strong correlation was indicated by an r value approaching 1.

Results

Overall mean AK and DAP was 380.27 mGy and 4919.2 µGym2. There was a poor correlation between fluoroscopy time and total AK or DAP ( r = 0.27 and 0.32). Total DAP was strongly correlated to cine DAP and fluoroscopy DAP ( r = 0.92 vs. 0.84). The number of DSA runs and average frame rate did not affect AK or DAP levels. Mean magnification level was significantly correlated with total AK ( r = 0.53).

Conclusions

Fluoroscopy time shows minimal correlation with radiation delivered and therefore is a poor surrogate for radiation exposure during fluoroscopy procedures. DAP and AK are more suitable markers to accurately gauge radiation exposure.

Physician and Patient Radiation Exposure During Endovascular Procedures

OPINION STATEMENT

Endovascular procedures expose both patients and physicians to fluoroscopic ionizing radiation that carries a dose-dependent risk of acute toxicity and a small, but demonstrable, long-term risk of malignancy due to resultant genetic mutations. Exposure doses vary widely based upon patient-related factors including body size and anatomic complexity, operator technique, procedure type (diagnostic vs. therapeutic), vascular bed imaged, and imaging equipment employed. Effective dosage may vary as much as 200-fold for physicians and 20-fold for patients depending upon the procedure: for example, complex aortic interventions with branched graft devices may convey mean effective doses of more than 0.4 mSv for physicians and 100 mSv for patients, whereas distal, small-vessel angiography may entail mean effective doses of less than 0.002 mSv for physicians and 5 mSv for patients. Particular attention is given to physicians' ocular exposure, which may cause cataract development, and to hand exposure, which is significantly higher than total body exposure when operators work near the x-ray beam. Given the risks of radiation exposure, numerous strategies have been developed to reduce both physician and patient doses. These measures include physician education about dose-reducing imaging techniques, development of low-dose imaging equipment, introduction of new radiation shielding drapes and caps, and real-time dose monitoring. Here, we review physician and patient effective doses of radiation by procedure type as reported in the literature and present recent data regarding dose-reduction strategies.

Meta-analysis of Cumulative Radiation Duration and Dose During EVAR Using Mobile, Fixed, or Fixed/3D Fusion C-Arms

Purpose: To investigate the total fluoroscopy time and radiation exposure dose during endovascular aortic repairs using mobile, fixed, or fixed C-arms with 3-dimensional image fusion (3D-IF). Methods: A systematic search was performed to identify original articles reporting fluoroscopy time (FT) and the kerma area product (KAP) during endovascular aortic repairs. Data were grouped by noncomplex or complex (fenestrated, branched, or chimney) repairs and stratified by type of C-arm. The search identified 27 articles containing 51 study groups (35 noncomplex and 16 complex) that included 3444 patients. Random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression models were used to calculate the pooled mean estimates of KAP and FT, as well as any effect of equipment or type of intervention. Results are presented with the 95% confidence interval and the statistical heterogeneity ( I2). Results: Within the noncomplex procedure studies, a significant (p<0.001) increase was found in the pooled mean KAP estimate in the fixed C-arm group (181 Gy·cm2, 95% CI 129 to 233; I2=99.7) compared with the mobile C-arm (78 Gy·cm2, 95% CI 59.6 to 97.3; I2=99.6). For complex cases, use of 3D-IF showed a significantly (p<0.001) lower mean KAP (139 Gy·cm2, 95% CI 85 to 191; I2=94%) compared to using fixed C-arms without 3D-IF (487 Gy·cm2, 95% CI 331 to 643; I2=94%). Conclusion: For equivalent fluoroscopy times, the use of a fixed C-arm in noncomplex procedures leads to higher patient radiation doses compared to a mobile C-arm. Complex procedures, which are predominantly performed using fixed C-arms, are associated with the highest radiation dose per intervention. Using fixed C-arms combined with 3D-IF techniques during complex cases might seem an adequate method to compensate for the higher radiation doses measured when a fixed C-arm is used.

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.

Contemporary Applications of Ultrasound in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Management

Ultrasound (US) is a well-established screening tool for detection of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and is currently recommended not only for those with a relevant family history but also for all men and high-risk women older than 65 years of age. The advent of minimally invasive endovascular techniques in the treatment of AAAs [endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR)] has increased the need for repeat imaging, especially in the postoperative period. Nevertheless, preoperative planning, intraoperative execution, and postoperative surveillance all mandate accurate imaging. While computed tomographic angiography and angiography have dominated the field, repeatedly exposing patients to the deleterious effects of cumulative radiation and intravenous nephrotoxic contrast, US technology has significantly evolved over the past decade. In addition to standard color duplex US, 2D, 3D, or 4D contrast-enhanced US modalities are revolutionizing AAA management and postoperative surveillance. This technology can accurately measure AAA diameter and volume, and most importantly, it can detect endoleaks post-EVAR with high sensitivity and specificity. 4D contrast-enhanced US can even provide hemodynamic information about the branch vessels following fenestrated EVARs. The need for experienced US operators and accredited vascular labs is mandatory to guarantee the reliability of the results. This review article presents a comprehensive overview of the literature on the state-of-art US imaging in AAA management, including post-EVAR follow-up, techniques, and diagnostic accuracy.

Typical exposure parameters, organ doses and effective doses for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair: Comparison of Monte Carlo simulations and direct measurements with an anthropomorphic phantom

OBJECTIVES

Radiation exposure of patients during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) procedures ranks in the upper sector of medical exposure. Thus, estimation of radiation doses achieved during EVAR is of great importance.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Organ doses (OD) and effective doses (ED) administered to 17 patients receiving EVAR were determined (1) from the exposure parameters by performing Monte Carlo simulations in mathematical phantoms and (2) by measurements with thermoluminescent dosimeters in a physical anthropomorphic phantom.

RESULTS

The mean fluoroscopy time was 26 min, the mean dose area product was 24995 cGy cm2. The mean ED was 34.8 mSv, ODs up to 626 mSv were found. Whereas digital subtraction angiographies (DSA) and fluoroscopies each contributed about 50% to the cumulative ED, the ED rates of DSAs were found to be ten times higher than those of fluoroscopies. Doubling of the field size caused an ED rate enhancement up to a factor of 3.

CONCLUSION

EVAR procedures cause high radiation exposure levels that exceed the values published thus far. As a consequence, (1) DSAs should be only performed when necessary and with a low image rate, (2) fluoroscopies should be kept as short as possible, and (3) field sizes should be minimized.

KEY POINTS

• During endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) considerable patient doses are achieved. • For each EVAR procedure organ (OD) and effective (ED) doses were determined. • The mean ED was 34.8 mSv, the highest OD was 626 mSv. • Number of DSAs, fluoroscopy durations and field sizes should be minimized.

A comparison study of radiation exposure to patients during EVAR and Dyna CT in an angiosuite vs. an operating theatre

The aim of this study was to assess the patient dosimetric impact of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR), both in an operating theatre (OR) and in an angiosuite (AS), with the facility of Dynamic CT (Dyna CT, Siemens AG, Berlin, Germany). One hundred and forty-six consecutive EVAR procedures dating from May 2011 to March 2013 were analysed. These were performed either in an OR (n = 97) using a mobile C-arm or in an AS (n = 49) equipped with a ceiling-mounted angiography system. Air kerma area product (P(KA)) and total air kerma at reference point (K(a,r)) values were reported for all procedures and Dyna CT. Radiation exposure during EVAR was quite low in the majority of patients but nearly 50 % higher if performed in AS vs. OR. Median Dyna CT K(a,r) was the same as an entire EVAR procedure in OR. The higher patient's radiation exposure recorded in the AS should be balanced with the technical advantages given to the EVAR procedure.

Editor's choice--Angulation of the C-arm during complex endovascular aortic procedures increases radiation exposure to the head

OBJECTIVES/BACKGROUND

The increased complexity of endovascular aortic repair necessitates longer procedural time and higher radiation exposure to the operator, particularly to exposed body parts. The aims were to measure directly exposure to radiation of the bodies and heads of the operating team during endovascular repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAA), and to identify factors that may increase exposure.

METHODS

This was a single-centre prospective study. Between October 2013 and July 2014, consecutive elective branched and fenestrated TAAA repairs performed in a hybrid operating room were studied. Electronic dosimeters were used to measure directly radiation exposure to the primary (PO) and assistant (AO) operator in three different areas (under-lead, over-lead, and head). Fluoroscopy and digital subtraction angiography (DSA) acquisition times, C-arm angulation, and PO/AO height were recorded.

RESULTS

Seventeen cases were analysed (Crawford II-IV), with a median operating time of 280 minutes (interquartile range 200-330 minutes). Median age was 76 years (range 71-81 years); median body mass index was 28 kg/m(2) (25-32 kg/m(2)). Stent-grafts incorporated branches only, fenestrations only, or a mixture of branches and fenestrations. A total of 21 branches and 38 fenestrations were cannulated and stented. Head dose was significantly higher in the PO compared with the AO (median 54 μSv [range 24-130 μSv] vs. 15 μSv [range 7-43 μSv], respectively; p = .022), as was over-lead body dose (median 80 μSv [range 37-163 μSv] vs. 32 μSv [range 6-48 μSv], respectively; p = .003). Corresponding under-lead doses were similar between operators (median 4 μSv [range 1-17 μSv] vs. 1 μSv [range 1-3 μSv], respectively; p = .222). Primary operator height, DSA acquisition time in left anterior oblique (LAO) position, and degrees of LAO angulation were independent predictors of PO head dose (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The head is an unprotected area receiving a significant radiation dose during complex endovascular aortic repair. The deleterious effects of exposure to this area are not fully understood. Vascular interventionalists should be cognisant of head exposure increasing with C-arm angulation, and limit this manoeuvre.

Current state in tracking and robotic navigation systems for application in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

This study reviewed the current developments in manual tracking and robotic navigation technologies for application in endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

EMBASE and MEDLINE databases were searched for studies reporting manual tracking or robotic navigation systems that are able to manipulate endovascular surgical tools during abdominal or thoracic aortic aneurysm repair. Reports were grouped by the navigation systems and categorized into phantom, animal, and clinical studies. First, the general characteristics of each system were compared. Second, target registration error and deployment error were used to compare the accuracy of the tracking systems. Third, all systems were reviewed for fluoroscopy time (FT), radiation dose, and contrast volumes, if reported, in rigid and nonrigid studies. Fourth, vascular cannulation performance of the systems was compared, studying cannulation time, Imperial College Complex Cannulation Scoring Tool score, and the number of wall hits and catheter movements within rigid studies.

RESULTS

Of 721 articles and references found, 18 studies of four different navigation systems were included: the Aurora (Northern Digital, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada) tracking system, the StealthStation (Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) tracking system, an ultrasound localization tracking system, and the Sensei (Hansen Medical, Mountain View, Calif) steerable remote-controlled robotic navigation system. The mean tracking accuracy averaged 1 mm for the three manual tracking systems measured in a rigid environment. An increase of target registration error reaching >3 mm was reported when measured in a nonrigid experimental environment or due to external distortion factors. Except within small-animal studies or case studies, no evidence was found on reduction of clinical outcome parameters, such as FT, radiation dose, and contrast volumes, within clinical EVAR. A comparison of vascular cannulation performance in rigid studies revealed that the Sensei robotic system might have an advantage during advanced cannulation compared with standard cannulation within complex cannulations tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

This review summarizes the current studies on manual tracking and robotic navigation systems for application in EVAR. The main focus of these systems is improving aortic vessel cannulation, required in complex EVAR, in which the robotic system with the improved steerability is favored over manual tracking systems or conventional cannulation. All reviewed tracking systems still require X-ray for anatomic imaging, stent graft deployment, and device registration. Although the current reviewed endovascular navigation systems have shown their potential in phantom and animal studies, clinical trials are too limited to conclude that these systems can improve EVAR outcomes or that they can systematically reduce FTs, radiation doses, and contrast volumes during (complex) EVAR.

Review of the Use of Ionizing Radiation in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

Endovascular repair for aortic aneurysm (EVAR) is rapidly increasing in popularity. The nature of this intervention requires significant exposure to ionizing radiation both during the procedure and for postoperative surveillance, generally in the form of computed tomography. Here the authors review the literature for radiation exposure during EVAR, both for the patient and the physician.

Three-dimensional fusion computed tomography decreases radiation exposure, procedure time, and contrast use during fenestrated endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular surgery has revolutionized the treatment of aortic aneurysms; however, these improvements have come at the cost of increased radiation and contrast exposure, particularly for more complex procedures. Three-dimensional (3D) fusion computed tomography (CT) imaging is a new technology that may facilitate these repairs. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the effect of using intraoperative 3D fusion CT on the performance of fenestrated endovascular aortic repair (FEVAR).

METHODS

Our institutional database was reviewed to identify patients undergoing branched or FEVAR. Patients treated using 3D fusion CT were compared with patients treated in the immediate 12-month period before implementation of this technology when procedures were performed in a standard hybrid operating room without CT fusion capabilities. Primary end points included patient radiation exposure (cumulated air kerma: mGy), fluoroscopy time (minutes), contrast usage (mL), and procedure time (minutes). Patients were grouped by the number of aortic graft fenestrations revascularized with a stent graft, and operative outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients (41 before vs 31 after 3D fusion CT implementation) underwent FEVAR from September 2012 through March 2014. For two-vessel fenestrated endografts, there was a significant decrease in radiation exposure (3400 ± 1900 vs 1380 ± 520 mGy; P = .001), fluoroscopy time (63 ± 29 vs 41 ± 11 minutes; P = .02), and contrast usage (69 ± 16 vs 26 ± 8 mL; P = .0002) with intraoperative 3D fusion CT. Similarly, for combined three-vessel and four-vessel FEVAR, significantly decreased radiation exposure (5400 ± 2225 vs 2700 ± 1400 mGy; P < .0001), fluoroscopy time (89 ± 36 vs 64 ± 21 minutes; P = .02), contrast usage (90 ± 25 vs 39 ± 17 mL; P < .0001), and procedure time (330 ± 100 vs 230 ± 50 minutes; P = .002) was noted. Estimated blood loss was significantly less (P < .0001), and length of stay had a trend (P = .07) toward being lower for all patients in the 3D fusion CT group.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate that use of intraoperative 3D fusion CT imaging during FEVAR can significantly decrease radiation exposure, procedure time, and contrast usage, which may also decrease the overall physiologic impact of the repair.

Surgeon education decreases radiation dose in complex endovascular procedures and improves patient safety

OBJECTIVE

Complex endovascular procedures such as fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) are associated with higher radiation doses compared with other fluoroscopically guided interventions (FGIs). The purpose of this study was to determine whether surgeon education on radiation dose control can lead to lower reference air kerma (RAK) and peak skin dose (PSD) levels in high-dose procedures.

METHODS

Radiation dose and operating factors were recorded for FGI performed in a hybrid room over a 16-month period. Cases exceeding 6 Gy RAK were investigated according to institutional policy. Information obtained from these investigations led to surgeon education focused on reducing patient dose. Points addressed included increasing table height, utilizing collimation and angulation, decreasing magnification modes, and maintaining minimal patient-to-detector distance. Procedural RAK doses and operating factors were compared 8 months pre- (group A) and 8 months post- (group B) educational intervention using analysis of variance with Tukey pairwise comparisons and t-tests. PSD distributions were calculated using custom software employing input data from fluoroscopic machine logs.

RESULTS

Of 447 procedures performed, 300 FGIs had sufficient data to be included in the analysis (54% lower extremity, 11% thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair, 10% cerebral, 8% FEVAR, 7% endovascular aneurysm repair, 5% visceral, and 5% embolization). Twenty-one cases were investigated for exceeding 6 Gy RAK. FEVAR comprised 70% of the investigated cases and had a significantly higher median RAK dose compared with all other FGIs (P < .0001). There was no difference in body mass index between groups A and B; however, increasing body mass index was an indicator for increased RAK. PSD calculations were performed for the 122 procedures that focused on the thorax and abdomen (group A, 80 patients; group B, 42 patients). Surgeon education most strongly affected table height, with an average table height elevation of 10 cm per case after education (P < .0001). The dose index (PSD/RAK ratio) was used to track changes in operating practices, and it decreased from 1.14 to 0.79 after education (P < .0001). These changes resulted in an estimated 16% reduction in PSD. There was a trend toward a decrease in patient to detector distance, and the use of collimation increased from 25% to 40% (P < .001) for all cases; however, these did not result in a decrease in PSD. The number of cases that exceeded 6 Gy RAK did not change after education; however, the proportion of non-FEVAR cases that exceeded 6 Gy decreased from 40% to 20%.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeon education on the appropriate use of technical factors during FGIs improved operating practice, reduced patient radiation dose, and decreased the number of non-FEVAR cases that exceeded 6 Gy. It is essential that vascular surgeons be educated in best operating practices to lower PSD; nonetheless, FEVAR remains a high-dose procedure.

The role of mandatory lifelong annual surveillance after thoracic endovascular repair

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become an attractive and well-accepted option for the management of the various thoracic aortic pathologies that vascular surgeons are confronted with. As in the abdominal aorta, current management trends include the treatment of younger patients with longer life expectancies, raising the issue of postoperative surveillance. There are several relevant differences between these anatomic areas when it comes to surveillance, including the relative inaccessibility of the thoracic aorta to ultrasound interrogation and the increased variability of thoracic aortic pathologies and post-TEVAR complications. In addition, concerns regarding radiation-induced carcinogenesis and contrast-induced nephropathy reduce the enthusiasm of many surgeons for regular computed tomography surveillance. Most agree that surveillance is important after TEVAR, but the method, duration, and frequency of that surveillance is much less clear and is the topic of this debate.