BACKGROUND: Previous analyses suggested that duplex ultrasonography (DUS) detected endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with insufficient sensitivity; they did not specifically examine types 1 and 3 endoleak, which, if untreated, may lead to aneurysm-related death. In light of changes to clinical practice, the diagnostic accuracy of DUS and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for types 1 and 3 endoleak required focused reappraisal. METHODS: Studies comparing DUS or CEUS with computed tomography (CT) for endoleak detection were identified. CT was taken as the standard in bivariable meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (3975 paired scans) compared DUS with CT for all endoleaks. The pooled sensitivity was 0·74 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·62 to 0·83) and the pooled specificity was 0·94 (0·90 to 0·97). Thirteen studies (2650 paired scans) reported detection of types 1 and 3 endoleak by DUS; the pooled sensitivity of DUS was 0·83 (0·40 to 0·97) and the pooled specificity was 1·00 (0·97 to 1·00). Eleven studies (961 paired scans) compared CEUS with CT for all endoleaks. The pooled sensitivity of CEUS was 0·96 (0·85 to 0·99) and the pooled specificity was 0·85 (0·76 to 0·92). Eight studies (887 paired scans) reported detection of types 1 and 3 endoleak by CEUS. The pooled sensitivity of CEUS was 0·99 (0·25 to 1·00) and the pooled specificity was 1·00 (0·98 to 1·00). CONCLUSION: Both CEUS and DUS were specific for detection of types 1 and 3 endoleak. Estimates of their sensitivity were uncertain but there was no evidence of a clinically important difference. DUS detects types 1 and 3 endoleak with sufficient accuracy for surveillance after EVAR.
BACKGROUND: Previous analyses suggested that duplex ultrasonography (DUS) detected endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) with insufficient sensitivity; they did not specifically examine types 1 and 3 endoleak, which, if untreated, may lead to aneurysm-related death. In light of changes to clinical practice, the diagnostic accuracy of DUS and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) for types 1 and 3 endoleak required focused reappraisal. METHODS: Studies comparing DUS or CEUS with computed tomography (CT) for endoleak detection were identified. CT was taken as the standard in bivariable meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies (3975 paired scans) compared DUS with CT for all endoleaks. The pooled sensitivity was 0·74 (95 per cent confidence interval 0·62 to 0·83) and the pooled specificity was 0·94 (0·90 to 0·97). Thirteen studies (2650 paired scans) reported detection of types 1 and 3 endoleak by DUS; the pooled sensitivity of DUS was 0·83 (0·40 to 0·97) and the pooled specificity was 1·00 (0·97 to 1·00). Eleven studies (961 paired scans) compared CEUS with CT for all endoleaks. The pooled sensitivity of CEUS was 0·96 (0·85 to 0·99) and the pooled specificity was 0·85 (0·76 to 0·92). Eight studies (887 paired scans) reported detection of types 1 and 3 endoleak by CEUS. The pooled sensitivity of CEUS was 0·99 (0·25 to 1·00) and the pooled specificity was 1·00 (0·98 to 1·00). CONCLUSION: Both CEUS and DUS were specific for detection of types 1 and 3 endoleak. Estimates of their sensitivity were uncertain but there was no evidence of a clinically important difference. DUS detects types 1 and 3 endoleak with sufficient accuracy for surveillance after EVAR.
Authors: Antony Bertrand-Grenier; Sophie Lerouge; An Tang; Eli Salloum; Eric Therasse; Claude Kauffmann; Hélène Héon; Igor Salazkin; Guy Cloutier; Gilles Soulez Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Alan Karthikesalingam; Sandeep S Bahia; Shaneel R Patel; Bilal Azhar; Dan Jackson; Lynne Cresswell; Robert J Hinchliffe; Peter J E Holt; Matt M Thompson Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 10.612