SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Cardiovascular surgery and interventions / 2022 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of Doppler ultrasonography and computed tomography angiography for endoleak diagnosis after endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm

Uğur Demir
Hasan İner
Tevfik Güneş
Mehmet Şenel Bademci
Muhsin Engin Uluç
Ali Gürbüz
Pages
9–19
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Our study results suggest that DUS is reliable method for detecting endoleak and measuring diameter of aneurysm during follow-up after EVAR.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: This study aims to compare the utility of Doppler ultrasound (DUS) versus computed tomography angiography (CTA) in the diagnosis of endoleaks.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Patients and methods: Between October 2008 and December 2010, a total of 30 patients (27 males, 3 females; mean age: 70.1±12 years, range: 52 to 85 years) with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) were retrospectively analyzed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Our study results suggest that DUS is reliable method for detecting endoleak and measuring diameter of aneurysm during follow-up after EVAR.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: This study aims to compare the utility of Doppler ultrasound (DUS) versus computed tomography angiography (CTA) in the diagnosis of endoleaks. Patients and methods: Between October 2008 and December 2010, a total of 30 patients (27 males, 3 females; mean age: 70.1±12 years, range: 52 to 85 years) with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were followed at 1, 6, and 12 months after EVAR with both DUS and CTA. Results: Stents grafts were patent in all patients. Endoleak was detected with CTA in six patients. Four patients had type I endoleak and two had type 2 endoleak. On CTA, two patients with type 2 endoleaks were unable to be detected with DUS. Considering CTA as the gold standard, DUS had a sensitivity and specificity of 75% and 100%, respectively. For detecting type 1 endoleak, DUS demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 100%, respectively. For detecting type 2 endoleak, DUS had a sensitivity of 50% and specificity of 100%. Conclusion: Our study results suggest that DUS is reliable method for detecting endoleak and measuring diameter of aneurysm during follow-up after EVAR. It may be possible to use DUS as an alternative to CTA in routine follow-up of the patients

🔖

Cite This Article

Demir, U., İner, H., Güneş, T., Bademci, M. Ş., Uluç, M. E., Gürbüz, A. (2022). Comparison of Doppler ultrasonography and computed tomography angiography for endoleak diagnosis after endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Cardiovascular surgery and interventions, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 9–19. https://ajindex.com/articles/470986

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Umebayashi R, Uchida HA, Wada J. Abdominal aortic aneurysm in aged population. Aging (Albany NY) 2018;10:3650-1
  2. Calero A, Illig KA. Overview of aortic aneurysm management in the endovascular era. Semin Vasc Surg 2016;29:3-17
  3. RESCAN Collaborators, Bown MJ, Sweeting MJ, Brown LC, Powell JT, Thompson SG. Surveillance intervals for small abdominal aortic aneurysms: A meta-analysis. JAMA 2013;309:806-13
  4. Fillinger MF, Racusin J, Baker RK, Cronenwett JL, Teutelink A, Schermerhorn ML, et al. Anatomic characteristics of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm on conventional CT scans: Implications for rupture risk. J Vasc Surg 2004;39:1243-52
  5. American Academy of Family Physicians. Information from your family doctor. Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA): What you should know. Am Fam Physician 2006;73:1205-6
  6. Santilli JD, Santilli SM. Diagnosis and treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Am Fam Physician 1997;56:1081-90
  7. Sakalihasan N, Limet R, Defawe OD. Abdominal aortic aneurysm. Lancet 2005;365:1577-89
  8. Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE, Chute EP, Hye RJ, Makaroun MS, et al. The aneurysm detection and management study screening program: Validation cohort and final results. Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Investigators. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1425-30
  9. Hallett JW Jr. Management of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:395-9
  10. Chaikof EL, Dalman RL, Eskandari MK, Jackson BM, Lee WA, Mansour MA, et al. The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg 2018;67:2-77.e2
  11. Bush RL, Johnson ML, Collins TC, Henderson WG, Khuri SF, Yu HJ, et al. Open versus endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in VA hospitals. J Am Coll Surg 2006;202:577-87
  12. United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators, Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Powell JT, Thompson SG, Epstein D. Endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm in patients physically ineligible for open repair. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1872-80
  13. Clancy K, Wong J, Spicher A. Abdominal aortic aneurysm: A case report and literature review. Perm J 2019;23:18
  14. Williamson JS, Ambler GK, Twine CP, Williams IM, Williams GL. Elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm and the risk of colonic ischaemia: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2018;56:31-9
  15. O'Connor PJ, Lookstein RA. Predictive factors for the development of type 2 endoleak following endovascular aneurysm