6533b7d7fe1ef96bd1268560

RESEARCH PRODUCT

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

Maria Antonietta PacilèGiuseppe La TorreMassimo RuggeriGianluca CeccaneiGiulio IlluminatiJean-baptiste Ricco

subject

MaleTime FactorsRadiographymedicine.medical_treatmentContrast MediaPilot Projects030204 cardiovascular system & hematologyRadiography InterventionalEndovascular aneurysm repair030218 nuclear medicine & medical imagingEndovascular aortic repairAortic aneurysmPostoperative Complications0302 clinical medicineRisk FactorsIntravascular ultrasoundAortic aneurysm endovascular repair intravascular ultrasoundFluoroscopyAged 80 and overmedicine.diagnostic_testEndovascular ProceduresAngiographyGeneral MedicineMiddle AgedRadiation ExposureTreatment Outcomesurgical procedures operativecardiovascular systemendovascularFemaleRadiologyCardiology and Cardiovascular MedicineAdultmedicine.medical_specialtyAortographyOperative TimeRadiation DosageAortographyintravascular ultrasoundBlood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation03 medical and health sciencesText miningabdominal aortic aneurysmPredictive Value of TestsmedicineHumanscardiovascular diseasesUltrasonography InterventionalAgedRetrospective StudiesIVUSbusiness.industrymedicine.diseaseAngiographySurgerybusinessAortic Aneurysm AbdominalAbdominal surgery

description

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2019.11.013