Key result
Vascular ultrasonography achieved 75% sensitivity and 96% specificity for the classification of endoleaks compared with angiotomography after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Why the study?
Does vascular ultrasonography accurately detect endoleaks compared to angiotomography in patients following endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms?
Observational (n=30)
No
Does vascular ultrasonography accurately detect endoleaks compared to angiotomography in patients following endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms?
Vascular ultrasonography is a highly specific but moderately sensitive method for detecting endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms, suggesting it is a good primary follow-up tool that may require supplementary imaging when issues are detected.
May support ultrasonography as initial post-EVAR surveillance; leaves open need for prospective validation before routine CT replacement.
BackgroundThere is little information available on follow-up of abdominal aortic aneurysm patients treated with endovascular repair using vascular ultrasonography in Brazil or on how it compares with the results of angiotomography. Since ultrasonography is an examination that is risk-free, inexpensive and widely available, it is a very attractive method. In this study we attempted to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of vascular ultrasonography for follow-up of these patients by comparing the method with angiotomography.Materials and methodsWe conducted a prospective study from June 2012 to May 2013. We examined patients followed-up at the endovascular surgery clinic run by the University Hospital of Londrina after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. All patients underwent angiotomography for follow-up and were also examined using simple abdominal X-rays and vascular ultrasonography.ResultsA total of 30 patients were analyzed, with a mean age of 73 years and a mean aneurysm diameter of 6 cm. Four endoleaks were detected. Vascular ultrasonography achieved sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 96% for classification of these endoleaks, in comparison with angiotomography.ConclusionsVascular ultrasonography is an excellent primary method for evaluation and post-surgical follow-up of patients treated with endovascular repair of abdominal aorta aneurysms. However, when ultrasonography detects problems or is difficult to accomplish, it should be supplemented with a more specific investigation for diagnostic confirmation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Filho et al. (2014) conducted an observational in Abdominal aortic aneurysms treated with endovascular repair (n=30). Vascular ultrasonography vs. Angiotomography was evaluated on Sensitivity and specificity for classification of endoleaks. Vascular ultrasonography achieved 75% sensitivity and 96% specificity for the classification of endoleaks compared with angiotomography after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: