6533b873fe1ef96bd12d59ef
RESEARCH PRODUCT
Single-centre experience and preliminary Results of intravascular ultrasound in endovascular aneurysm repair
Mario LachatFelice PecoraroF. FerlitoUmberto BracaleVincenzo AstiEttore DinotoGiovanni BadalamentiGuido BajardiA Farinasubject
MaleTime Factorsmedicine.medical_treatmentContrast MediaPredictive Value of TestEndovascular aneurysm repairSettore MED/22 - Chirurgia VascolareAortic aneurysmRetrospective StudieRisk FactorsIntravascular ultrasoundFluoroscopyAged 80 and overmedicine.diagnostic_testEndovascular ProceduresGeneral MedicineMiddle AgedRadiation ExposureAbdominal aortic aneurysm2746 SurgeryTreatment OutcomeItalyFemaleRadiologyCardiology and Cardiovascular Medicinerenal function impairmentHumanPreliminary Datamedicine.medical_specialtyTime Factor610 Medicine & healthRadiation DosageAortography2705 Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicineintravascular ultrasoundBlood Vessel Prosthesis ImplantationEndovascular aneurysm repaircontrast mediumPredictive Value of Testsmedicinefluoroscopy timeHumansUltrasonography InterventionalAgedRetrospective StudiesEndovascular Procedurebusiness.industryRisk FactorAngiography Digital SubtractionPerioperativeDigital subtraction angiographymedicine.disease10020 Clinic for Cardiac SurgeryAngiographySurgerybusinessAortic Aneurysm Abdominaldescription
Background Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been introduced as diagnostic adjunct to provide new insights into the diagnosis and therapy of vascular disease. Herein, we compared the outcomes of conventional endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and EVAR with IVUS in patients presenting with infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm using a propensity-matched cohort. Methods From May 2013 to August 2017, 221 patients were retrospectively analyzed. Of that, 122 patients were eligible for inclusion and underwent propensity score matching. Perioperative mortality and morbidity, renal function impairment, endoleak incidence, mean contrast medium usage, operative time, radiation exposure (including fluoroscopy time, dose-area product [DAP], and digital subtraction angiography [DSA] runs), survival, and freedom from reintervention were the outcomes measured. Results After matching, 52 patients were included, 26 in the conventional EVAR group and 26 in the EVAR with IVUS group. No perioperative mortality or type I/III endoleak were registered. One perioperative lymphatic fistula and one iliac limb occlusion were observed. In the EVAR with IVUS group, a significant reduction of contrast medium (92 [vs. 51 ± 17] vs. 51 [20–68] mL; P = 0.003) and radiation exposure including fluoroscopy time (12 [9–16] vs. 20 [12–25] min; P = 0.001), DAP (15 [9–21] vs. 32 [16–44] G*cm2; P = 0.002), and DSA runs (2 [1–3] vs. 3 [2–4]; P = 0.04) was reported. No differences were observed in terms of glomerular filtration rate (86 [45–121] vs. 90 [38–117] mL/min; P = 0.14) and operation time (176 [124–210] vs. 179 [120–210]; P = 0.48). Survival at 36 months was 93% for standard EVAR and 92% for EVAR with IVUS (P = 0.845). Freedom from reintervention at 36 months was 85.5% in both the groups (P = 0.834). Conclusions In this preliminary experience, the use of IVUS during EVAR was feasible with no registered postoperative complications. A significant reduction of contrast medium usage and radiation exposure was observed with the use of IVUS. The IVUS is an adjunctive tool to consider in the vascular surgeon armamentarium, especially in centers where advanced radiological tools of imaging fusion are not available.
year | journal | country | edition | language |
---|---|---|---|---|
2019-04-01 |