Cargando…

Superb Micro-vascular Imaging (SMI): a Doppler ultrasound technique with potential to identify, classify, and follow up endoleaks in patients after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR)

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of Superb Micro-vascular Imaging (SMI) as an alternative to Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) and Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) for endoleak detection and classification in patients followed up after endovascular abdominal aorti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gabriel, Marcin, Tomczak, Jolanta, Snoch-Ziółkiewicz, Magdalena, Dzieciuchowicz, Łukasz, Strauss, Ewa, Pawlaczyk, Katarzyna, Wojtusik, Dorota, Oszkinis, Grzegorz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6208813/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29876784
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1633-x
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of Superb Micro-vascular Imaging (SMI) as an alternative to Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) and Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) for endoleak detection and classification in patients followed up after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: From May 2015 to January 2017, 30 patients underwent post-EVAR follow-up with Color Doppler Ultrasound (CDUS), CEUS, SMI, and CTA examinations. Aneurysmal sac diameter and graft patency were evaluated; endoleaks were identified and classified. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values were calculated for each of the four diagnostic methods of endoleak detection. A percentage of agreement and Cohen’s Kappa coefficient were calculated for comparison of methods in terms of endoleak identification. RESULTS: CTA revealed fifteen endoleaks (50%): three type Ia, nine type II, and three type III. The sensitivity of CDUS, CEUS, and SMI relative to CTA was 27%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Specificity was 93%, 93%, and 93%, respectively. Accuracy was 60%, 97%, and 97%, respectively. There were no differences between SMI and CEUS in terms of sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy (100%, 93%, and 97%). We do not observe statistically significant differences between CTA, CEUS, and SMI concerning endoleak identification ability. The weakest method in endoleak identification was CDUS. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis showed that SMI is effective, repeatable, and comparable with the CEUS modality in identification endoleaks after EVAR; it may be considered as a potential tool to monitor patients after EVAR implantation, especially those with renal insufficiency or with an allergy to any contrast media.