Duplex Ultrasound Surveillance After Uncomplicated Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair.

Autor:	Schaeffer JS; 1 General Surgery Residency, Department of Medical Education, Gundersen Medical Foundation, La Crosse, WI, USA., Shakhnovich I; 2 Department of General and Vascular Surgery, Gundersen Health System, La Crosse, WI, USA., Sieck KN; 3 Department of Medical Research, Gundersen Medical Foundation, La Crosse, WI, USA., Kallies KJ; 3 Department of Medical Research, Gundersen Medical Foundation, La Crosse, WI, USA., Davis CA; 2 Department of General and Vascular Surgery, Gundersen Health System, La Crosse, WI, USA., Cogbill TH; 2 Department of General and Vascular Surgery, Gundersen Health System, La Crosse, WI, USA.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Vascular and endovascular surgery [Vasc Endovascular Surg] 2017 Jul; Vol. 51 (5), pp. 295-300. Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 May 23.
DOI:	10.1177/1538574417708131
Abstrakt:	Objectives: Health-care costs and risks of radiation and intravenous contrast exposure challenge computed tomography angiography (CTA) as the standard surveillance method after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). We reviewed our experience using Duplex ultrasound scan (DUS) as an initial and subsequent surveillance technique after uncomplicated EVAR. Methods: The medical records of patients who underwent EVAR from 2004 to 2014 with at least 1 postoperative imaging study were retrospectively reviewed. Duplex ultrasound scan was the primary modality, with CTA reserved for patients with suspicious findings. Results: Mean follow-up was 3.2 years for 266 patients. Fifty-seven endoleaks (7 type I, 50 type II) were detected in 51 patients (19%). Nineteen (33%) endoleaks were identified and monitored by DUS alone. Nine (16%) endoleaks were identified on CTA without prior DUS. Twenty-two (39%) endoleaks were identified on DUS and confirmed by CTA; 6 of these patients had a secondary intervention. When compared to subsequent CTA, there were 7 discordant results: 4 false-negative and 3 false-positive endoleaks on DUS. Two of these patients with discordant results required intervention. Follow-up CTA was not obtained for the other 2 patients due to severe comorbidities including renal disease. One of these patients eventually developed abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture and death. Among 88 patients with both DUS and CTA, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for DUS were 0.88 and 0.94, respectively. Sac size on DUS compared to CTA resulted in an interclass correlation coefficient of r = .84. Conclusions: In our experience, DUS was safe and effective for initial and follow-up surveillance after uncomplicated EVAR.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu