Contrast harmonic imaging ultrasound and perfusion imaging for surveillance after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair regarding detection and characterization of suspected endoleaks

Colour Duplex and/or Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Compared with Computed Tomography Angiography for Endoleak Detection after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study aims to assess the role of Color Duplex Ultrasound with or without contrast media for surveillance following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). A systematic search of the literature published until April 2022 was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The pooled rates of endoleak detection through Contrast-Enhanced or Color Duplex Ultrasound (CEUS or CDUS) and Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effect analysis. Thirty-eight studies were considered eligible for inclusion. The total number of patients in the included studies was 5214 between 1997 and 2021. The overall pooled rate of endoleak detection using CDUS and CTA was 82.59% and 97.22%, while the rates for CEUS and CTA were 96.67% and 92.82%, respectively. The findings of the present study support the use of the CEUS for endoleak detection. However, it should be integrated into institutional protocols for EVAR surveillance to further evaluate its clinical utility in the post-EVAR period before it can be recommended as the sole imaging modality after EVAR.

Artifacts in Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound during Follow-up after Endovascular Aortic Repair: Impact on Endoleak Detection in Comparison with Computed Tomography Angiography

The study described here systematically analyzed how specific artifacts in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) can affect the detection of endoleaks during follow-up after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Patients undergoing EVAR of atherosclerotic or mycotic abdominal aortic aneurysms using various standard and branched stent-graft material for visceral and iliac preservation were enrolled over 5 y and followed up with computed tomography angiography (CTA) and CEUS simultaneously. CEUS artifacts were frequently identified after EVAR procedures (59% of examinations) and were caused mainly by contrast agent, different prosthesis or embolization material and postinterventional changes in the aneurysm sac. This article describes how to identify important artifacts and how to avoid false-negative or false-positive interpretations of endoleaks. Despite artifacts, CEUS had higher sensitivity for endoleak detection after EVAR than CTA. CEUS was superior to CTA in the identification of late endoleaks type II and in follow-up examinations after embolization procedures, where beam-hardening artifacts limited CTA.

Intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound examination for endoleak detection after complex and infrarenal endovascular aortic repair

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound (iCEUS) examination for endoleak (EL) detection after complex endovascular aortic repairs (EVAR) in comparison with the standard angiographic completion control.

METHODS

Twenty-one patients (16 male; median age, 73 years [range, 54-81 years]) who underwent single-stage EVARs at our center between October 2016 and October 2018 were included prospectively. The procedures comprised fenestrated and/or branched EVAR (n = 14; 66%), infrarenal EVAR (n = 5; 24%), infrarenal EVAR with bilateral iliac side branch implantation (n = 1; 5%), and infrarenal EVAR with occluder implantation into the internal iliac artery (n = 1; 5%). The used endografts included 14 custom made devices (Cook, Australia Pty Ltd, Brisbane, Australia, n = 6; Vascutek Terumo, Glasgow, Scotland, n = 8) and seven standard infrarenal endografts (Medtronic Inc, Santa Rosa, Calif, n = 5; Vascutek Terumo, Glasgow, Scotland, n = 1; Cook, n = 1). All patients underwent an angiographic completion control for EL detection followed by iCEUS examination. The iCEUS examination was performed by the same examiner who was blinded to the angiography result. In addition to the comparison of the angiographic results to iCEUS examination, iCEUS examination was also compared with the computed tomography angiography (CTA) before discharge (median time to CTA, 5 days [range, 1-7 days]).

RESULTS

Angiography detected eight type II EL, defining the EL origin in four cases. In addition to detecting all of those eight EL, iCEUS examination revealed eight more type II EL not seen on angiography (P = .002) and allowed a definition of the EL origin in all cases. CTA before discharge showed a persistence of only 5 of the 16 type II EL detected by iCEUS examination (31%, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

An iCEUS examination can be used as another adjunct to decrease exposure to contrast agent and radiation during EVAR, including complex procedures. A replacement of the completion angiography by iCEUS examination is conceivable for infrarenal EVAR, but also for endovascular type IV or type V repairs. Future studies with larger patient numbers will help to further validate iCEUS examination during complex EVAR.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) of the abdominal vasculature

Vascular diseases account for a significant proportion of abdominal pathology and represent a common referral source for abdominal ultrasonographic examinations. B-mode, color Doppler, and spectral Doppler analyses are well-established in the evaluation of abdominal blood vessels although they may occasionally be limited by lower sensitivity for slow flow visualization or the deeper location of abdominal vascular structures. The introduction of microbubbles as ultrasonographic contrast agents has rendered contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), a valuable complementary ultrasonographic technique, which is capable of addressing clinically significant problems and guiding patient management. The purpose of this pictorial review is to analyze the use of CEUS in the evaluation of abdominal vascular pathology and illustrate such applications by presenting representative images. Pathology discussed includes abdominal aortic aneurysm, post-endovascular treatment aorta, portal vein thrombosis, abdominal vascular trauma, and organ transplantation along with its complications.

Evolving clinical applications of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the abdominal aorta

Ultrasound (US) represents the initial modality in the workup of abdominal aortic pathology based on the plethora of advantages including widespread availability, low cost, safety profile and repeatability. However, US has inherent limitations including limited spatial information of pathologic processes to neighboring structures, lower sensitivity to slow blood flow and aortic luminal irregularities. For evaluation of aortic pathology angiography has long been considered the gold standard. Non-invasive cross-sectional imaging techniques like computed tomography angiography (CTA) and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) have gradually replaced interventional angiography for the evaluation of aorta, currently being regarded as the diagnostic imaging modalities of choice for diagnosis of virtually every aortic disease. Interventional angiography is currently primarily performed for treatment purposes of aortic pathology. The introduction of microbubbles as ultrasonographic contrast agents has rendered contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) an evolving valuable complementary technique with markedly increased diagnostic accuracy for certain aortic applications. CEUS is characterized by the potential to be performed in patients with impaired renal function. Due to its superior spatial and temporal resolution, ability for prolonged scanning and dynamic and real-time imaging, it provides clinically significant additional information compared to the standard Duplex US. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the currently available literature regarding abdominal aortic applications of CEUS, briefly elaborate on CEUS technique and safety and present cases in order to illustrate the added value in aortic pathologies. Conditions discussed include abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), aneurysm rupture, aneurysm surveillance after endovascular repair, dissection and aortitis.

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.

Standardized 2D ultrasound versus 3D/4D ultrasound and image fusion for measurement of aortic aneurysm diameter in follow-up after EVAR

PURPOSE

To compare standardised 2D ultrasound (US) to the novel ultrasonographic imaging techniques 3D/4D US and image fusion (combined real-time display of B mode and CT scan) for routine measurement of aortic diameter in follow-up after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).

METHOD AND MATERIALS

300 measurements were performed on 20 patients after EVAR by one experienced sonographer (3rd degree of the German society of ultrasound (DEGUM)) with a high-end ultrasound machine and a convex probe (1-5 MHz). An internally standardized scanning protocol of the aortic aneurysm diameter in B mode used a so called leading-edge method. In summary, five different US methods (2D, 3D free-hand, magnetic field tracked 3D - Curefab™, 4D volume sweep, image fusion), each including contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), were used for measurement of the maximum aortic aneurysm diameter. Standardized 2D sonography was the defined reference standard for statistical analysis. CEUS was used for endoleak detection.

RESULTS

Technical success was 100%. In augmented transverse imaging the mean aortic anteroposterior (AP) diameter was 4.0±1.3 cm for 2D US, 4.0±1.2 cm for 3D Curefab™, and 3.9±1.3 cm for 4D US and 4.0±1.2 for image fusion. The mean differences were below 1 mm (0.2-0.9 mm). Concerning estimation of aneurysm growth, agreement was found between 2D, 3D and 4D US in 19 of the 20 patients (95%). Definitive decision could always be made by image fusion. CEUS was combined with all methods and detected two out of the 20 patients (10%) with an endoleak type II. In one case, endoleak feeding arteries remained unclear with 2D CEUS but could be clearly localized by 3D CEUS and image fusion.

CONCLUSION

Standardized 2D US allows adequate routine follow-up of maximum aortic aneurysm diameter after EVAR. Image Fusion enables a definitive statement about aneurysm growth without the need for new CT imaging by combining the postoperative CT scan with real-time B mode in a dual image display. 3D/4D CEUS and image fusion can improve endoleak characterization in selected cases but are not mandatory for routine practice.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of duplex ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography or computed tomography for surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND

Previous analyses suggested that duplex ultrasonography (DUS) detected endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with insufficient sensitivity; they did not specifically examine types 1 and 3 endoleak, which, if untreated, may lead to aneurysm-related death. In light of changes to clinical practice, the diagnostic accuracy of DUS and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for types 1 and 3 endoleak required focused reappraisal.

METHODS

Studies comparing DUS or CEUS with computed tomography (CT) for endoleak detection were identified. CT was taken as the standard in bivariable meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies (3975 paired scans) compared DUS with CT for all endoleaks. The pooled sensitivity was 0·74 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·62 to 0·83) and the pooled specificity was 0·94 (0·90 to 0·97). Thirteen studies (2650 paired scans) reported detection of types 1 and 3 endoleak by DUS; the pooled sensitivity of DUS was 0·83 (0·40 to 0·97) and the pooled specificity was 1·00 (0·97 to 1·00). Eleven studies (961 paired scans) compared CEUS with CT for all endoleaks. The pooled sensitivity of CEUS was 0·96 (0·85 to 0·99) and the pooled specificity was 0·85 (0·76 to 0·92). Eight studies (887 paired scans) reported detection of types 1 and 3 endoleak by CEUS. The pooled sensitivity of CEUS was 0·99 (0·25 to 1·00) and the pooled specificity was 1·00 (0·98 to 1·00).

CONCLUSION

Both CEUS and DUS were specific for detection of types 1 and 3 endoleak. Estimates of their sensitivity were uncertain but there was no evidence of a clinically important difference. DUS detects types 1 and 3 endoleak with sufficient accuracy for surveillance after EVAR.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: The evolving applications

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is a major breakthrough for ultrasound imaging in recent years. By using a microbubble contrast agent and contrast-specific imaging software, CEUS is able to depict the micro- and macro-circulation of the targeted organ, which in turn leads to improved performance in diagnosis. Due to the special dual blood supply system in the liver, CEUS is particularly suitable for liver imaging. It is evident that CEUS facilitates improvement for characterization of focal liver lesions (FLLs), detection of liver malignancy, guidance for interventional procedures, and evaluation of treatment response after local therapies. CEUS has been demonstrated to be equal to contrast-enhanced computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging for the characterization of FLLs. In addition, the applicability of CEUS has expanded to non-liver structures such as gallbladder, bile duct, pancreas, kidney, spleen, breast, thyroid, and prostate. The usefulness of CEUS in these applications is confirmed by extensive literature production. Novel applications include detecting bleeding sites and hematomas in patients with abdominal trauma, guiding percutaneous injection therapy and therefore achieving the goal of using interventional ultrasonography in managing splenic trauma, assessing the activity of Crohn’s disease, and detecting suspected endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair. Contrast-enhanced intraoperative ultrasound (US) and intracavitary use of CEUS have been developed and clinically studied. The potential use of CEUS involves sentinel lymph node detection, drug or gene delivery, and molecular imaging. In conclusion, the advent of CEUS has greatly enhanced the usefulness of US and even changed the status of US in clinical practice. The application of CEUS in the clinic is continuously evolving and it is expected that its use will be expanded further in the future.