Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Single-Center Experience and Preliminary Results of Intravascular Ultrasound in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair


Pecoraro, Felice; Bracale, Umberto M; Farina, Arduino; Badalamenti, Giovanni; Ferlito, Francesca; Lachat, Mario; Dinoto, Ettore; Asti, Vincenzo; Bajardi, Guido (2019). Single-Center Experience and Preliminary Results of Intravascular Ultrasound in Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. Annals of Vascular Surgery, 56:209-215.

Abstract

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*cm; 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.

Abstract

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*cm; 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.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Cardiovascular Surgery
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:1 April 2019
Deposited On:22 Feb 2019 09:49
Last Modified:09 Apr 2019 01:06
Publisher:Elsevier
ISSN:0890-5096
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avsg.2018.09.016
PubMed ID:30500656

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher

Get full-text in a library