PURPOSE: To investigate the current clinical practice in postoperative endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) imaging surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Corresponding authors of EVAR publications during the years 2006-2011 and subscribers to an endovascular journal were invited to complete a 27-question online survey related to institutional demographics, standard post-EVAR imaging surveillance, and imaging protocols in special circumstances (eg, renal insufficiency). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 515 of 9,631 physicians performing EVAR from 52 countries. Of respondents, 65.3% were affiliated with experienced centers where EVAR has been performed for > 10 years or with > 50 EVAR procedures performed per year. Computed tomography (CT) angiography was the modality used most often for standard surveillance with a maximum time interval between studies of 12 months in 78.8% of centers out to 5 years. Experienced centers were more likely to delay follow-up imaging to 1 year after an unremarkable initial post-EVAR imaging study (P < .001), to extend surveillance intervals > 12 months (P = .043), and to use ultrasound (P < .01) for surveillance. After the detection of a type II endoleak, CT angiography was favored for follow-up by 59.4% of the respondents. Experienced centers were more likely to favor ultrasound (P = .006) and to schedule this follow-up examination later (after 6-12 months, P < .001). Of respondents, 62.8% used a glomerular filtration rate threshold of < 30 mL/min for not performing contrast-enhanced CT scan. In patients with renal insufficiency, most respondents performed ultrasound with or without a concomitant noncontrast CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: CT is the most frequently used method of long-term surveillance after EVAR. Use of ultrasound for long-term surveillance, extension of follow-up time intervals, or both were most often reported in experienced centers.
PURPOSE: To investigate the current clinical practice in postoperative endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) imaging surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Corresponding authors of EVAR publications during the years 2006-2011 and subscribers to an endovascular journal were invited to complete a 27-question online survey related to institutional demographics, standard post-EVAR imaging surveillance, and imaging protocols in special circumstances (eg, renal insufficiency). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 515 of 9,631 physicians performing EVAR from 52 countries. Of respondents, 65.3% were affiliated with experienced centers where EVAR has been performed for > 10 years or with > 50 EVAR procedures performed per year. Computed tomography (CT) angiography was the modality used most often for standard surveillance with a maximum time interval between studies of 12 months in 78.8% of centers out to 5 years. Experienced centers were more likely to delay follow-up imaging to 1 year after an unremarkable initial post-EVAR imaging study (P < .001), to extend surveillance intervals > 12 months (P = .043), and to use ultrasound (P < .01) for surveillance. After the detection of a type II endoleak, CT angiography was favored for follow-up by 59.4% of the respondents. Experienced centers were more likely to favor ultrasound (P = .006) and to schedule this follow-up examination later (after 6-12 months, P < .001). Of respondents, 62.8% used a glomerular filtration rate threshold of < 30 mL/min for not performing contrast-enhanced CT scan. In patients with renal insufficiency, most respondents performed ultrasound with or without a concomitant noncontrast CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: CT is the most frequently used method of long-term surveillance after EVAR. Use of ultrasound for long-term surveillance, extension of follow-up time intervals, or both were most often reported in experienced centers.
Authors: Ali F AbuRahma; Michael Yacoub; Stephen M Hass; Joseph AbuRahma; Albeir Y Mousa; L Scott Dean; Ravi Viradia; Patrick A Stone Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-01-09 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Alan Karthikesalingam; Omneya Attallah; Xianghong Ma; Sandeep Singh Bahia; Luke Thompson; Alberto Vidal-Diez; Edward C Choke; Matt J Bown; Robert D Sayers; Matt M Thompson; Peter J Holt Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: E David; V Cantisani; H Grazhdani; L Di Marzo; L Venturini; F Fanelli; M Di Segni; N Di Leo; L Brunese; F Calliada; M Ciccariello; A Bottari; G Ascenti; F D'Ambrosio Journal: J Ultrasound Date: 2016-11-23
Authors: Salmonn Talebi; Mohammad H Madani; Ali Madani; Ashley Chien; Jody Shen; Domenico Mastrodicasa; Dominik Fleischmann; Frandics P Chan; Mohammad R K Mofrad Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 4.996