Duplex ultrasound in aneurysm surveillance following endovascular aneurysm repair: a comparison with computed tomography aortography.
AffiliationDepartment of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, St James Hospital, Dublin,, Ireland. email@example.com
Aged, 80 and over
Angiography, Digital Subtraction
*Blood Vessel Prosthesis
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects/*instrumentation
Databases as Topic
Predictive Value of Tests
Sensitivity and Specificity
*Tomography, X-Ray Computed
*Ultrasonography, Doppler, Color
MetadataShow full item record
CitationJ Vasc Surg. 2009 Jan;49(1):60-5. Epub 2008 Oct 1.
JournalJournal of vascular surgery : official publication, the Society for Vascular, Surgery [and] International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery, North American, Chapter
AbstractOBJECTIVES: Cumulative radiation dose, cost, and increased demand for computed tomography aortography (CTA) suggest that duplex ultrasonography (DU) may be an alternative to CTA-based surveillance. We compared CTA with DU during endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) follow-up. METHODS: Patients undergoing EVAR had clinical and radiological follow-up data entered in a prospectively maintained database. For the purpose of this study, the gold standard test for endoleak detection was CTA, and an endoleak detected on DU alone was assumed to be a false positive result. DU interpretation was performed independently of CTA and vice versa. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-two patients underwent EVAR, of whom 117 attended for follow-up ranging from six months to nine years (mean, 32 months). Adequate aneurysm sac visualisation on DU was not possible in 1.7% of patients, predominantly due to obesity. Twenty-eight endoleaks were detected in 28 patients during follow-up. Of these, 24 were initially identified on DU (four false negative DU examinations), and eight had at least one negative CTA with a positive DU prior to diagnosis. Twenty-three endoleaks were type II in nature and three of these patients had increased sac size. There was one type I and four type III endoleaks. Two of these (both type III) had an increased sac size. Of 12 patients with increased aneurysm size of 5 mm or more at follow-up, five had an endoleak visible on DU, yet negative CTA and a further five had endoleak visualisation on both DU and CTA. Of six endoleaks which underwent re-intervention, all were initially picked up on DU. One of these endoleaks was never demonstrated on CTA and a further two had at least one negative CTA prior to endoleak confirmation. Positive predictive value for DU was 45% and negative predictive value 94%. Specificity of DU for endoleak detection was 67% when compared with CTA, because of the large number of false positive DU results. Sensitivity for DU was 86%, with all clinically significant endoleaks demonstrated on CTA also detected on DU. CONCLUSION: Despite its low positive predictive value, we found DU to be a sensitive test for the detection of clinically significant endoleaks. Given concerns about cumulative radiation exposure and cost, and the surprisingly low sensitivity of CTA for endoleak detection in this series, selective CTA based on DU surveillance may be a more appropriate long-term strategy.