Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging after endovascular treatment of infrarenal aortic aneurysms

The usefulness of contrast-enhanced subtraction magnetic resonance imaging for detecting endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair with prophylactic intraoperative sac embolization

BACKGROUND

Metallic and hyperdense artifacts and T1-shortening substances in the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) sac generated by embolic materials and lipiodol pose challenges in the identification of endoleaks on follow-up computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

PURPOSE

To evaluate the usefulness of contrast-enhanced subtraction MRI (CES-MRI) for detecting endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) with intraoperative AAA sac embolization compared with CE-CT, this study was conducted.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this study, 28 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR with prophylactic AAA sac embolization were included. All patients underwent CES-MRI and CE-CT to detect endoleaks. The definitive diagnosis of endoleaks was a consensus reading of CE-CT and CES-MRI by two certified radiologists, in addition to angiography or reproducible radiological findings in the observational examination. Analysis was performed to evaluate which examination was better for detecting endoleaks.

RESULTS

The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of CE-CT and CES-MRI according to observer 1 were 50%, 100%, and 0.813 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.625-1.00) and 100%, 95%, and 0.997 (95% CI = 0.984-1.00), respectively, and those according to observer 2 were 50%, 100%, and 0.750 (95% CI = 0.514-0.986) and 100%, 95%, and 0.969 (95% CI = 0.903-1.00), respectively. Intolerable artifacts were significantly observed on CE-CT. The severity of the artifacts did not depend on the stent graft on CT and MRI.

CONCLUSION

Although no significant difference was observed, CES-MRI tended to have better accuracy for endoleak detection in EVAR with intraoperative AAA sac embolization than CE-CT.

Utility of Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Angiography for Aneurysm Follow-Up and Detection of Endoleaks after Endovascular Aortic Repair

Objective

To assess the noncontrast two-dimensional single-shot balanced turbo-field-echo magnetic resonance angiography (b-TFE MRA) features of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) status following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and evaluate to detect endoleaks (ELs).

Materials and Methods

We examined four aortic stent-grafts in a phantom study to assess the degree of metallic artifacts. We enrolled 46 EVAR-treated patients with AAA and/or common iliac artery aneurysm who underwent both computed tomography angiography (CTA) and b-TFE MRA after EVAR. Vascular measurements on CTA and b-TFE MRA were compared, and signal intensity ratios (SIRs) of the aneurysmal sac were correlated with the size changes in the AAA after EVAR (AAA prognoses). Furthermore, we examined six feasible b-TFE MRA features for the assessment of ELs.

Results

There were robust intermodality (r = 0.92–0.99) correlations and interobserver (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97–0.99) agreement. No significant differences were noted between SIRs and aneurysm prognoses. Moreover, “mottled high-intensity” and “creeping high-intensity with the low-band rim” were recognized as significant imaging findings suspicious for the presence of ELs (p < 0.001), whereas “no signal black spot” and “layered high-intensity area” were determined as significant for the absence of ELs (p < 0.03). Based on the two positive features, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the detection of ELs were 77.3%, 91.7%, and 84.8%, respectively. Furthermore, the k values (0.40–0.88) displayed moderate-to-almost perfect agreement.

Conclusion

Noncontrast MRA could be a promising imaging modality for ascertaining patient follow-up after EVAR.

Editor's Choice - Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Outcome of Treatment for Type II Endoleak Following Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVES

The efficacy and need for secondary interventions for type II endoleaks following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain controversial. This systematic review aimed at investigating the clinical outcomes of different type II endoleak treatments in patients with a persistent type II endoleak after EVAR.

DATA SOURCES

Embase, Medline via Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar.

REVIEW METHODS

This systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA Statement. Outcomes of interest were technical and clinical success, change in sac diameter, complications, need for additional interventions, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture, and (AAA related) mortality. Meta-analyses were performed with random effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 59 studies were included, with a cumulative cohort of 1073 patients with persistent type II endoleak. Peri-operative complications following treatment of type II endoleaks occurred in 3.8% of patients (95% CI 2.7-5.2%), and AAA related mortality was 1.8% (95% CI 1.1-2.7%). Overall technical success was 87.9% (95% CI 83.1-92.1%), while clinical success was 68.4% (95% CI 61.2-75.1%). Among studies detailing sac dynamics, decrease or stable sac, with or without resolution, was achieved in 78.4% (95% CI 70.2-85.6%). Changes in sac diameter following type II endoleak treatment were documented in 157 patients to at least 24 months. Within this group an actual decrease in sac diameter was reported in only 27 of 40 patients.

CONCLUSION

There is little evidence supporting the efficacy of secondary intervention for type II endoleaks after EVAR. Although generally safe, the lack of evidence supporting the efficacy of type II endoleak treatment leads to difficulty in assessing its merits.

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.

Spondylodiscitis following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: imaging perspectives from a single centre's experience

OBJECTIVE

Very few reports have previously described spondylodiscitis as a potential complication of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). We present to our knowledge the first case series of spondylodiscitis following EVAR based on our institution's experience over an 11-year period. Particular attention is paid to the key imaging features and challenges encountered when performing spinal imaging in this complex patient group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Of 1,847 patients who underwent EVAR at our institution between January 2006 and January 2017, a total of 9 patients were identified with imaging features of spondylodiscitis (0.5%). All cross-sectional studies before and after EVAR were assessed by a Consultant Musculoskeletal Radiologist and a Musculoskeletal Radiology Fellow to evaluate for features of spondylodiscitis.

RESULTS

All 9 patients had single-level spondylodiscitis involving lumbosacral levels adjacent to the aortic/iliac stent graft. Eight out of nine patients had an extensive anterior paravertebral phlegmon/abscess that was contiguous with the infected stent graft and native aneurysm sac ± anterior vertebral body erosion. Epidural disease was present in only 3 out of 9 patients and was a minor feature. MRI was non-diagnostic in 3 out of 9 patients owing to susceptibility artefact. ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT accurately depicted the spinal level involved and adjacent paravertebral disease in patients with non-diagnostic MRI and was adopted as the follow-up modality in 3 out of 5 surviving patients.

CONCLUSION

Spondylodiscitis is a rare complication post-EVAR. Imaging features of disproportionate anterior paravertebral disease and anterior vertebral body bony involvement suggest direct spread of infection posteriorly to the adjacent vertebral column. Use of MRI versus ¹⁸F-FDG PET/CT as the optimal imaging modality should be directed by the type of stent graft deployed.

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.

Endoleak detection after endovascular aneurysm repair using unenhanced MRI with flow suppression technique: Feasibility study in comparison with contrast-enhanced CT

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the feasibility of unenhanced motion-sensitized-driven equilibrium (MSDE)-prepared balanced turbo field echo (BTFE) sequences for detecting endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHODS

Forty-six patients treated with EVAR for aortic and/or iliac arterial aneurysms underwent contrast-enhanced CT and MSDE-prepared BTFE sequences with and without flow suppression. Two independent observers reviewed these sequences and their subtraction images and assigned confidence levels for detecting endoleaks. Relative contrast values were calculated by dividing signal intensities by those of paraspinal muscles. CT provided the reference standard.

RESULTS

CT showed types I and II endoleaks in one and ten patients, respectively. Areas under receiver operating characteristic curves were 0.92 and 0.97 for observers 1 and 2, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of both observers were 91 (10/11), 91(32/35), 91 (42/46), 77 (10/13) and 97 % (32/33), respectively. Relative contrast values of endoleaks and flowing blood significantly decreased by flow suppression on MSDE-prepared BTFE images (P = 0.002 and P < 0.0001 respectively), and were significantly higher than those of the excluded aneurysms on subtraction images (P = 0.003 and P = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Unenhanced MSDE-prepared BTFE sequences are feasible for detecting endoleaks.

KEY POINTS

• Flow suppression significantly reduces endoleak signals on MSDE-prepared BTFE images. • Subtraction images of MSDE-prepared BTFE sequences ± flow suppression demonstrate endoleaks. • MSDE-prepared BTFE sequences indicate high diagnostic values (>90 %) except PPV (77 %). • MSDE-prepared BTFE sequences need further refinement to reduce false positives. • Endoleaks can be detected without contrast injection using MSDE-prepared BTFE sequences.

Diagnostic imaging methods applied in long-term surveillance after EVAR. Will computed tomography angiography be replaced by other methods?

Endovascular implantation of a stent graft in the abdominal aorta (endovascular aneurysm repair – EVAR) is a widely accepted alternative to open surgery in treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Although EVAR is connected with a significant reduction in the risk of peri- and post-operative complications, it does not eliminate them totally. Long-term surveillance of post-EVAR patients is aimed at early detection of and fast reaction to a group of complications called endovascular leaks. Currently, the gold standard in leak diagnostics is computed tomography angiography (CTA). The other methods are ultrasonography, magnetic resonance (MR) angiography, intra-aneurysm sac pressure measurement, X-ray, and digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Despite many analyses based on long-term research, emphasising the high value and competitiveness of less invasive tests such as US or X-ray compared to CTA, it is still difficult for them to win the trust and acceptance of clinicians. The persisting view is that computed tomography is the test that finally resolves any inaccuracies. Consequently, a patient with a number of concurrent diseases is subject to absurdly high radiation exposure and effects of a radiocontrast agent within a short time. It is therefore logical to acknowledge that the EVAR-related risk is catching up with the open surgery risk, while the endovascular procedure is much more costly. Nevertheless, the status of CTA as the gold standard ultimately seems to be unthreatened. This paper presents a description of the diagnostic imaging tests that make it possible to detect any vascular leaks and to develop strategies for therapeutic processes.

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.

Radiological Evaluation of Abdominal Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair

Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an alternative to open surgical repair of aortic aneurysms offering lower perioperative mortality and morbidity. As experience increases, clinicians are undertaking complex repairs with hostile aortic anatomy using branched or fenestrated devices or extra components such as chimneys to ensure perfusion to visceral branch vessels whilst excluding the aneurysm. Defining the success of EVAR depends on both clinical and radiographic criteria, but ultimately depends on complete exclusion of the aneurysm from the circulation. Aortic stent grafts are monitored using a combination of imaging modalities including computed tomography angiography (CTA), ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, plain films, and nuclear medicine studies. This article describes when and how to evaluate aortic stent grafts using each of these modalities along with the characteristic features of several of the main stent grafts currently used in clinical practice. The commonly encountered complications from EVAR are also discussed and how they can be detected using each imaging modality. As the radiation burden from serial follow up CTA imaging is now becoming a concern, different follow-up imaging strategies are proposed depending on the complexity of the repair and based on the relative merits and disadvantages of each imaging modality.

A method for incorporating three-dimensional residual stretches/stresses into patient-specific finite element simulations of arteries

The existence of residual stresses in human arteries has long been shown experimentally. Researchers have also demonstrated that residual stresses have a significant effect on the distribution of physiological stresses within arterial tissues, and hence on their development, e.g., stress-modulated remodeling. Through progress in medical imaging, image analysis and finite element (FE) meshing tools it is now possible to construct in vivo patient-specific geometries and thus to study specific, clinically relevant problems in arterial mechanics via FE simulations. Classical continuum mechanics and FE methods assume that constitutive models and the corresponding simulations start from unloaded, stress-free reference configurations while the boundary-value problem of interest represents a loaded geometry and includes residual stresses. We present a pragmatic methodology to simultaneously account for both (i) the three-dimensional (3-D) residual stress distributions in the arterial tissue layers, and (ii) the equilibrium of the in vivo patient-specific geometry with the known boundary conditions. We base our methodology on analytically determined residual stress distributions (Holzapfel and Ogden, 2010, J. R. Soc. Interface 7, 787-799) and calibrate it using data on residual deformations (Holzapfel et al., 2007, Ann. Biomed. Eng. 35, 530-545). We demonstrate our methodology on three patient-specific FE simulations calibrated using experimental data. All data employed here are generated from human tissues - both the aorta and thrombus, and their respective layers - including the geometries determined from magnetic resonance images, and material properties and 3-D residual stretches determined from mechanical experiments. We study the effect of 3-D residual stresses on the distribution of physiological stresses in the aortic layers (intima, media, adventitia) and the layers of the intraluminal thrombus (luminal, medial, abluminal) by comparing three types of FE simulations: (i) conventional calculations; (ii) calculations accounting only for prestresses; (iii) calculations including both 3-D residual stresses and prestresses. Our results show that including residual stresses in patient-specific simulations of arterial tissues significantly impacts both the global (organ-level) deformations and the stress distributions within the arterial tissue (and its layers). Our method produces circumferential Cauchy stress distributions that are more uniform through the tissue thickness (i.e., smaller stress gradients in the local radial directions) compared to both the conventional and prestressing calculations. Such methods, combined with appropriate experimental data, aim at increasing the accuracy of classical FE analyses for patient-specific studies in computational biomechanics and may lead to increased clinical application of simulation tools.

Endovascular repair of aortoiliac aneurysmal disease with the helical iliac bifurcation device and the bifurcated-bifurcated iliac bifurcation device

BACKGROUND

Iliac branch device (IBD) treatment of common and internal iliac artery (CIA and IIA) aneurysms has been controversial in the context of available embolization techniques or off-label adjunctive procedures. Two devices exist, a straight IBD (S-IBD) and a helical IBD (H-IBD). We report our midterm results with the latter and present outcomes with a third device intended to treat disease in the presence of short CIAs termed the bifurcated-bifurcated IBD (BB-IBD).

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected from IBD-treated patients with infrarenal aortoiliac or thoracoabdominal aortoiliac aneurysms. Preoperative aneurysmal characteristics were collected in accordance with the endovascular reporting standards document, including presence of IIA stenosis, CIA diameters, and the presence of an IIA aneurysm. Technical success was defined as IBD device placement, branch placement, and patency without type I or III endoleak at implantation in addition to 24 hours survival. Follow-up computed tomography scans at 1, 6 (optional), 12 months, and annually thereafter were performed and reinterventions, sac morphology changes, and endoleaks noted. Survival and patency were evaluated with life-table analyses, and differences among anatomic groups were compared with log-rank tests, whereas t-tests and Fisher exact tests were used to compare simple variables.

RESULTS

Between 2003 and 2012, 138 IBD devices were placed into 130 patients (98 H-IBD and 40 BB-IBD). Median follow-up was 20.3 months (range, 1-72 months) with 30- day, 12-month, 3- and 5-year survival rates of 99%, 90%, 79%, and 62%, respectively. Technical success was 94%, and branch patency was 94.6% at 30 days and 81.8% at 5 years. Thirty-five percent (35%) of branches were placed into patients with IIA aneurysms (in addition to their proximal disease), 20% into stenotic IIAs, and 46% into iliac systems with narrow (<16 mm) CIAs. Technical success was significantly lower in patients with IIA stenosis (81.5 vs 96.4%; Fisher exact test, P = .015) but not affected by the presence of an IIA aneurysm or narrow CIA. Branch patency was similar in all groups throughout follow-up. No stent fractures or component separations were noted in the IBDs or mating devices throughout the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

The H-IBD and BB-IBD configurations have high technical success and acceptable long-term patency for the treatment of CIA and IIA aneurysms, including those with challenging anatomy difficult to treat with the straight branch design.

[Review of pre- and post-treatment multidetector computed tomography findings in abdominal aortic aneurysms]

The increase in the frequency of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) and the widely accepted use of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as a first-line treatment or as an alternative to conventional surgery make it necessary for radiologists to have thorough knowledge of the pre- and post-treatment findings. The high image quality provided by multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) enables CT angiography to play a fundamental role in the study of AAA and in planning treatment. The objective of this article is to review the cases of AAA in which CT angiography was the main imaging technique, so that radiologists will be able to detect the signs related to this disease, to diagnose it, to plan treatment, and to detect complications in the postoperative period.

Magnetic resonance imaging is more sensitive than computed tomography angiography for the detection of endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this systematic review was to examine whether magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography angiography (CTA) is more sensitive for the detection of endoleaks in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) after EVAR.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic electronic search was performed. Articles were included when post-EVAR patients were evaluated by both MRI as index test and CTA as comparison. Methodological quality was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients in whom MRI detected additional endoleaks, which were not seen with CTA.

RESULTS

Eleven articles were included. The overall methodological quality of the articles was good. In total, 369 patients with 562 MRI and 562 CTA examinations were included. A total of 146 endoleaks were detected by CTA; MRI detected all but two of these endoleaks. With MRI 132 additional endoleaks were found.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI is more sensitive compared to CTA for the detection of post-EVAR endoleaks, especially for the detection of type II endoleaks. MRI should be considered in patients with continued AAA growth and negative or uncertain findings at CTA.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus computed tomographic angiography for surveillance of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

PURPOSE

To compare diagnostic accuracy between contrast-enhanced ultrasound (US) and computed tomographic (CT) angiography to detect changes in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) size and endoleaks during follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between May 2006 and December 2008, 83 patients were consecutively enrolled for contrast-enhanced US and CT angiography imaging during surveillance after EVAR, yielding 127 paired examinations. Comparative analysis was performed for the anteroposterior and transverse maximal diameters of the aneurysm sac and for the presence or absence of endoleak, as determined by US and CT angiography.

RESULTS

Contrast-enhanced US demonstrated significantly more endoleaks, predominantly of type II, compared with CT angiography (53% vs 22% of cases). The number of observed agreements was 77 of 127 (61%), indicating a low level of agreement (kappa value of 0.237). US was as accurate as CT angiography in the assessment of maximal aneurysm sac diameters, as shown by Bland-Altman analyses and low coefficients of variation (8.0% and 8.6%, respectively). The interobserver variability for AAA size measurement by US was low, given the interclass correlation coefficients of 0.99 and 0.98 for anteroposterior and transverse maximal diameters, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Contrast-enhanced US may be an alternative to CT angiography in the follow-up of patients after EVAR. As US reduces exposure to the biologic hazards associated with lifelong annual CT angiography, including cumulative radiation dose and nephrotoxic contrast agent load, contrast-enhanced US might be considered as a substitute for CT angiography in the surveillance of patients after EVAR.

Type II endoleaks: when is intervention indicated and what is the index of suspicion for types I or III?

One of the principal reasons for failure of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the occurrence of endoleaks, which regardless of size or type can transmit systemic pressure to the aneurysm sac. There is little debate that type I endoleaks (poor proximal or distal sealing) are associated with continued risk of aneurysm rupture and require treatment. Similarly, with type III endoleak, there is agreement that the defect in the device needs to be addressed; however, what to do with type II endoleaks and their effect on long-term outcome are not so clear. Aneurysm sac change is a primary parameter for determining the presence of an endoleak and assessing its impact. While diameter measurement has been the most commonly used method for determining sac changes, volume measurement has now been proven superior for monitoring structural changes in the 3-dimensional sac. Determining the source of an endoleak and the direction of flow are necessary for proper classification; however, while computed tomographic angiography has high sensitivity and specificity for detecting endoleaks, it is limited in its ability to show the direction of flow. Contrast-enhanced duplex ultrasound, on the other hand, is better able to quantify flow and characterize endoleaks. Flow is evidence of pressure, and increasing intrasac pressure increases wall tension, thus inducing progressive aneurysm expansion until rupture. Hence, determining intrasac pressure is becoming a vital component of endoleak assessment. All endoleaks can create systemic pressure inside the aneurysm sac, and there are a variety of intrasac pressure transducers being evaluated to assess this effect. A clinical pathway for patients with suspected type II endoleaks is based on a combination of imaging and pressure measurements. Imaging alone requires at least two interval examinations to determine the trend, while pressure measurements give immediate reassurance or an indication to intervene. Although still under development, pressure measurement is destined for general use and will provide a scientific basis for the management of type II endoleaks.

Prospective, intraindividual comparison of MRI versus MDCT for endoleak detection after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms

This study compares MRI and MDCT for endoleak detection after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR). Forty-three patients with previous EVAR underwent both MRI (2D T1-FFE unenhanced and contrast-enhanced; 3D triphasic contrast-enhanced) and 16-slice MDCT (unenhanced and biphasic contrast-enhanced) within 1 week of each other for endoleak detection. MRI was performed by using a high-relaxivity contrast medium (gadobenate dimeglumine, MultiHance). Two blinded, independent observers evaluated MRI and MDCT separately. Consensus reading of MRI and MDCT studies was defined as reference standard. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated and Cohen's k statistics were used to estimate agreement between readers. Twenty endoleaks were detected in 18 patients at consensus reading (12 type II and 8 indeterminate endoleaks). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for endoleak detection were 100%, 92%, and 96%, respectively, for reader 1 (95%, 81%, 87% for reader 2) for MRI and 55%, 100%, and 80% for reader 1 (60%, 100%, 82% for reader 2) for MDCT. Interobserver agreement was excellent for MDCT (k = 0.96) and good for MRI (k = 0.81). MRI with the use of a high-relaxivity contrast agent is significantly superior in the detection of endoleaks after EVAR compared with MDCT. MRI may therefore become the preferred technique for patient follow-up after EVAR.

Endoleak detection and classification after endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm: value of CEUS over CTA

This paper focuses on the diagnostic value of CEUS in the detection and characterization of endoleaks in comparison with other imaging modalities, primary CDUS and CTA in the follow-up of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. CEUS is an interesting alternative technique because of its limited costs and lack of exposure to ionizing radiation. However, CTA cannot currently be substituted because it enables a more precise evaluation of aneurysm morphologic changes, aneurysm sac diameter, graft anchorage and integrity. CEUS could be used along with CTA when the latter reveals the presence of endoleak, to provide a better characterization of it taking advantage of the angiodynamic behavior of the contrast agent that permits an easier visualization of the agent flow into the sac. It could also be indicated when aneurysm diameter increases and CTA did not show sac reperfusion or to monitor type II endoleaks reducing the use of CTA with consequent reduction of costs and exposure to radiation.

Aneurysm Sac pressure measurement with minimally invasive implantable pressure sensors: an alternative to current surveillance regimes after EVAR?

Current protocols for surveillance after endovascular repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms are mostly based on costly and time-consuming imaging procedures and aim to detect adverse events such as graft migration, endoleaks or aneurysm sac enlargement. These imaging procedures are either associated with radiation exposure to the patients or may be harmful to the patient due to the use of iodine- or gadolinium-containing contrast agents. Furthermore the advantages of EVAR in the short term might be negated by the necessity for endograft surveillance over years. Thus, alternative modalities for follow-up are being investigated. One of these technologies provides pressure information directly from the aneurysm sac. This noninvasive, telemetric pressure sensing was tested in vitro as well as in first clinical trials and was able to identify successful aneurysm exclusion after EVAR. The telemetric pressure sensors showed a promising efficacy and accuracy in detecting type I and type III endoleaks and will help to clarify the clinical relevance of type II endoleaks. This article provides an overview of the in vitro sensors investigated as well as the first clinical trials and the sensors' potential to change the current endograft surveillance regimes.

Assessing the effectiveness of endografts: Clinical and experimental perspectives

The increasing use of endografts to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms has prompted the need for improved postoperative imaging and surveillance. Although patients benefit from decreased morbidity with endovascular repair compared with open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, the long-term outcome of stent repair has yet to be fully determined. The persistence of endoleaks highlights the need for close follow-up, particularly because this may lead to aneurysm rupture, even after endograft repair. The current mainstay of assessing the healing of endografts is obtaining serial helical computed tomography angiography (CTA) to identify endoleaks, graft migration, thrombosis, and structural failure. CTA is not completely effective at identifying endoleaks and predicting aneurysm rupture, however. Other modalities have been studied to improve on current imaging methods, including three-dimensional CTA with volumetric analysis, contrast-enhanced duplex ultrasound imaging, cine magnetic resonance angiography, and explant analysis. In vitro and large-animal models of abdominal aortic aneurysm have also been developed to study the pathophysiology and treatment response of aneurysm exclusion. Thus, clinical and experimental models of endograft healing are attempting to define the optimal method of postoperative surveillance of endovascular repair.

Type II Endoleak after Endoaortic Graft Implantation: Diagnosis with Helical CT Arteriography

PURPOSE

To retrospectively assess endoleak shapes and locations within aneurysms to differentiate type II from type I and type III endoleaks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review board granted an exemption for this HIPAA-compliant study; patient informed consent was not required. A retrospective review of arterial phase helical computed tomographic (CT) studies and medical records was performed for 39 patients (29 men, 10 women; age range, 60-89 years; mean, 78.5 years) who had an endoleak after endoaortic graft implantation for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm and who subsequently underwent angiography (n = 25), surgery (n = 8), or long-term follow-up (n = 6) to classify their endoleak into a specific type. At CT, endoleak shape (tubular or nontubular) and location (central or peripheral) were recorded. An endoleak was classified as type II if it contained a peripheral tubular component (PTC) near the aortic wall, with or without an identifiable feeding vessel. Endoleaks without these features were classified as type I or III. The Fisher exact test was used to assess associations between CT findings and endoleak type.

RESULTS

There were 22 type II and 17 type I or III endoleaks. CT enabled correct identification of 22 (100%) of 22 type II endoleaks, all of which contained a PTC. Of 17 type I or III endoleaks, only two (12%) contained a PTC and were misclassified as type II endoleaks; the remaining 15 (88%) were correctly classified. Overall, CT enabled correct identification of endoleaks as type II or type I or III in 37 (95%) of 39 patients. PTCs were significantly more common (P < .001) in type II than in type I or III endoleaks, with a sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value of 100%, 88.2%, 94.9%, 100%, and 91.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A PTC is a statistically significant predictor of type II endoleak in most patients.

MRI virtual biopsies: analysis of an explanted endovascular device and perspectives for the future

Information that can be obtained by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of explanted endovascular devices must be validated as this method is non-destructive. Histology of such a device together with its encroached tissues can be elegantly performed after polymethymethacrylate (PMMA) embedding, but this approach requires destruction of the specimen. The issue is therefore to determine if the MRI is sufficient to fully validate an explanted device based upon the characterization of an explanted specimen. An AneuRx device deployed percutaneously 25 months earlier in a 75-year-old patient was removed en bloc at autopsy together with the surrounding aneurysmal sac and segments of the upstream and downstream arteries. Macroscopic pictures were taken and a slice of the cross-section was processed for histology after polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) embedding. For the magnetic resonance imaging investigation, the device was inserted in a Biospec 4.7 T MRI system with a 20 mm diameter birdcage resonator used for both emission and reception. A Spin-Echo (SE) was used to acquire both T1 proton density (PD) and T2 weighted images. A gradient-echo (GE) sampling of a free induction decay (GESFID) was used to generate multiple GE images using a single excitation pulse so that four images at different TE were obtained in the same acquisition. The selected explanted device was outstandingly well-healed compared to most devices harvested from humans. No inflammatory process was observed in contact or at distance of the materials. In MRI T1 images display no specific contrast and were homogeneous in the different tissues. The contrast was improved on proton density weighed images. On the T2 weighed images, the different areas were well identified. The diffusion images displayed in the surrounding B region had the greatest diffusion coefficient and the greatest anisotropy. The MRI analysis of the explanted AneuRx device illustrates the possibilities of this technique to characterize the interaction of the endovascular graft with the surrounding tissues. MRI is a breakthrough to investigate explanted medical devices but it also can be advantageously used in vivo to obtain virtual biopsies, because real biopsies to determine the 3 Bs (biocompatibility, biofunctionality and bioresilience) cannot be carried out as they could obviously initiate infection and degradation of the foreign materials.

Diagnostic Value of Color Duplex Ultrasonography in the Follow-up of Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysma

PURPOSE

To systematically review the findings of diagnostic value of color duplex ultrasound (US) in the follow-up of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of PubMed and Medline databases for English-language literature was performed to find studies published between 1991 and 2005. Studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of color duplex US with that of computed tomographic (CT) angiography were included, and analysis was performed of the detection of endoleaks and measurement of aneurysm diameter.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (39 separate comparisons) met the criteria and were included for analysis. Pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of color duplex US compared with CT angiography (with 95% CIs) were 66% (52%-81%), 93% (89%-97%), 76% (65%-87%), 90% (86%-95%), and 91% (86%-97%), respectively, for unenhanced color duplex US; and 81% (52%-100%), 82% (68%-97%), 58% (26%-90%), 95% (87%-100%), and 98% (91%-100%), respectively, for enhanced color duplex US. The sensitivity in the detection of endoleak was significantly improved with contrast material-enhanced color duplex US compared with unenhanced color duplex US (P < .05); however, no significant difference was found regarding the specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy between unenhanced and enhanced color duplex US (P > .05). Color duplex US was insensitive in measurement of aneurysm diameter compared with CT angiography in most situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Color duplex US is not as accurate as CT angiography and cannot replace CT angiography in the follow-up of endovascular aortic repair of AAAs. However, the use of contrast material-enhanced color duplex US resulted in improvement of diagnostic accuracy in the detection of endoleak and warrants further study.

Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging of endoleaks after EVAR

AIM

The aim of study was to compare the sensitivity of MRI and CTA for endoleak detection and classification after EVAR.

PATIENTS & METHODS

Twenty-eight patients, between 2 days and 65 months after EVAR, were evaluated with both CT and MRI. Twenty-five patients had an Ancure graft and the other three had an Excluder. The MRI protocol for endoleak evaluation included: a T1-weighted spin echo, a high-resolution 3D CE-MRA, and a post-contrast T1-weighted spin echo. In total 40 ml Gadolinium was administered. The CT protocol consisted of a blank survey followed by a spiral CT angiography (CTA) using 140 ml of Ultravist. An experienced, blinded observer evaluated all CTs and MRIs.

RESULTS

Using MRI and MRA techniques significantly more endoleaks (23/35) were detected than with CTA (11/35) (p=0.01, Chi-Square). CT could not determine the type of endoleak in 3 of the 11 endoleaks detected and was uncertain in one. MRI was uncertain about the type in 14 of the 23 endoleaks detected. All endoleaks visible on CT were visible by MRI as well.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI techniques are more sensitive for the detection of endoleak after endovascular AAA repair than CT.

Endoleakage after endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: diagnosis, significance and treatment

Endoleak, also called leakage, leak and Perigraft leak, is a major complication and its persistence represents a failure of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Its detection and treatment is therefore of primary importance, since endoleak can be associated with pressurization (increase in pressure) of the sac, resulting in expansion and rupture of the aneurysm. The aim of this paper is to discuss the definition, significance, diagnosis and different options to treat endoleak.

MRI versus helical CT for endoleak detection after endovascular aneurysm repair

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI and helical CT for endoleak detection.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Fifty-two patients underwent endovascular aneurysm repair with nitinol stent-grafts. Follow-up data sets included contrast-enhanced biphasic CT and MRI within 48 hr after the intervention; at 3, 6, and 12 months; and yearly thereafter. The endoleak size was categorized as < or = 3%, > 3% < or = 10%, > 10% < or = 30%, or > 30% of the maximum cross-sectional aneurysm area. A consensus interpretation of CT and MRI was defined as the standard of reference.

RESULTS

Of 252 data sets, 141 showed evidence for endoleaks. The incidence of types I, II, and III endoleaks and complex endoleaks was 3.2%, 40.1%, 8.7%, and 4.0%, respectively. The sensitivity for endoleak detection was 92.9%, 44.0%, 34.8%, and 38.3% for MRI, biphasic CT, uniphasic arterial CT, and uniphasic late CT, respectively. The corresponding negative predictive values were 91.7%, 58.4%, 54.7%, and 56.1%, respectively. The overall accuracy of endoleak detection and correct sizing was 95.2%, 58.3%, 55.6%, and 57.1% for MRI, biphasic CT, uniphasic arterial CT, and uniphasic late CT, respectively.

CONCLUSION

MRI is significantly superior to biphasic CT for endoleak detection and rating of endoleak size, followed by uniphasic late and uniphasic arterial CT scans. MRI shows a significant number of endoleaks in cases with negative CT findings and may help illuminate the phenomenon of endotension. Endoleak rates reported after endovascular aneurysm repair substantially depend on the imaging techniques used.

Dynamic CE-MRA for Endoleak Classification after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

AIM

To evaluate the value of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance angiography (CE-MRA) for classification of endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-eight patients, between 2 days and 54 months after EVAR, were evaluated with CTA, MRI and dynamic CE-MRA. The additional diagnostic value of the dynamic 3D CE-MRA was evaluated by determining the ability of the dynamic series in pinpointing the site of inflow of an endoleak.

RESULTS

An endoleak was detected in 23 patients. Seventeen of the 23 dynamic series were technically successful (no disturbing artifacts limiting the diagnostic value). Using MRI our findings were: 2 type I, 6 type II, 1 type III, no type IV endoleaks and in 14 cases classification could not be made. The classification results for MRI plus the dynamic CE-MRA were: 2 type I, 12 type II, 1 type III, no type IV endoleaks and in eight cases classification could not be made. In six cases the dynamic MRA allowed classification of the endoleak, which was not possible with the non-dynamic images alone (p=0.091, Fisher exact).

CONCLUSION

This pilot study shows that dynamic CE-MRA can have additional value in the classification of endoleaks. Dynamic CE-MRA might obviate the need for diagnostic digital subtraction angiography and aid planning for intervention.

MR Angiography for Abdominal and Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms: Assessment Before Endovascular Repair in Patients with Impaired Renal Function

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to establish the feasibility of using MR angiography as the sole imaging technique before endovascular repair of abdominal or thoracic aortic aneurysms and to compare preprocedural measurements by MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography in patients with impaired renal function.

CONCLUSION

MR angiography appears to be effective and reliable for use as the sole imaging method before endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms in patients with renal impairment.

Clinical Significance of Type II Endoleak after Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Type II endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) are a result of retrograde flow from arterial branches (e.g., lumbar and inferior mesenteric) refilling the aneurysm sac, which has been excluded by the stent graft. Controversy continues with regard to the clinical significance and treatment of type II endoleaks. To develop recommendations for management, we analyzed outcome data from 10 EVAR trials completed over the last 5 years involving a total of 2,617 cases. The incidence of type II endoleak at discharge or 30 days was 6-17%, at 6 months 4.5-8%, and at 1 year 1-5%. Successful resolution of endoleak following secondary interventions was observed in 11-100% of cases. There were 10 conversions to open repair and no ruptures related to type II endoleak. In patients observed for 12 months with computed tomography and/or ultrasound, approximately one-half of type II endoleaks disappeared spontaneously. In the absence of a type I endoleak, our analysis of the current literature suggests that intervention for type II endoleak should be undertaken for abdominal aortic aneurysm sac enlargement occurring after 6 months, persistence for >12 months without abdominal aortic aneurysm sac enlargement, or an aneurysm sac pressure >20% of systolic blood pressure; translumbar aneurysm sac thrombosis and intra-arterial feeding vessel occlusion appear to be prudent management options.

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

PURPOSE

To synthesize the available evidence regarding the diagnostic accuracy of color duplex ultrasonography (CDU) versus the accepted gold-standard of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) for the detection and classification of endoleaks after aortic endografting.

METHODS

A systematic search of the literature was conducted using electronic bibliographical databases and other means to gather articles published between 1991 and 2004. Articles were scrutinized against inclusion/exclusion criteria that broadly followed the QUADAS quality assessment guidelines. The results of diagnostic CDU were expressed for each study as a 2x2 contingency table, and summary statistics (sensitivity/specificity with 95% confidence intervals [CI]) were calculated. Pooled and random effects meta-analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Eight published studies and 2 unpublished studies from Charing Cross and St. George's Hospitals (711 patients, 1355 paired scans performed > or = 1 month after endografting) were eligible for inclusion. From meta-analyses, the pooled sensitivity of CDU (versus CT as the gold standard) was 69% (95% CI 52% to 87%) and the specificity of CDU was 91% (95% CI 87% to 95%). These parameters did not appear to vary over time when a smaller dataset of 117 patients with 239 paired scans was used to compare CT and CDU specifically at 3, 12, and 24 months after endografting. Endoleak classification data, which was derived from only 5 small studies, indicated that CDU appeared to have better diagnostic accuracy in detecting type I or type III endoleaks compared with type II endoleaks; however, the data were insufficient for statistical analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

CDU currently does not have sufficient diagnostic accuracy for the detection of all endoleaks in routine clinical practice. The diagnostic accuracy of CDU may improve if type II endoleaks are ignored.