Cargando…

Initial experience with Duplex scan combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound for follow-up of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

BACKGROUND: Microbubble contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an accurate diagnostic method for follow-up after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) that has been well-established in international studies. However, there are no Brazilian studies that focus on this follow-up method....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Faustino, Carolina Brito, Ventura, Carlos, Portugal, Maria Fernanda Cassino, Brunheroto, André, Teivelis, Marcelo Passos, Wolosker, Nelson
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e de Cirurgia Vascular (SBACV) 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9045535/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35515084
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1677-5449.200093
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Microbubble contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an accurate diagnostic method for follow-up after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) that has been well-established in international studies. However, there are no Brazilian studies that focus on this follow-up method. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to report initial experience with CEUS at a tertiary hospital, comparing the findings of CEUS with those of conventional Doppler ultrasound (DUS), with the aim of determining whether addition of contrast to the standard ultrasonographic control protocol resulted in different findings. METHODS: From 2015 to 2017, 21 patients in follow-up after EVAR underwent DUS followed by CEUS. The findings of these examinations were analyzed in terms of identification of complications and their capacity to identify the origin of endoleaks. RESULTS: There was evidence of complications in 10 of the 21 cases examined: seven patients exhibited endoleaks (33.3%); two patients exhibited stenosis of a branch of the endograft (9.52%); and one patient exhibited a dissection involving the external iliac artery (4.76%). In the 21 patients assessed, combined use of both methods identified 10 cases of post-EVAR complications. In six of the seven cases of endoleaks (85.71%), use of the methods in combination was capable of identifying the origin of endoleakage. DUS alone failed to identify endoleaks in two cases (28.5%) and identified doubtful findings in another two cases (28.5%), in which diagnostic definition was achieved after employing CEUS. CONCLUSIONS: CEUS is a technique that is easy to perform and provides additional support for follow-up of infrarenal EVAR.