OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for detection of endoleaks and aneurysm sac calcifications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using hard plaque imaging algorithms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred five patients received 108 triple-phase contrast-enhanced CT (non-contrast, arterial and delayed phase) after EVAR. The delayed phase was acquired in dual-energy and post-processed using the standard (HPI-S) and a modified (HPI-M) hard plaque imaging algorithm. The reference standard was determined using the triple-phase CT and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. All images were analysed separately for the presence of endoleaks and calcifications by two independent readers; sensitivity, specificity and interobserver agreement were calculated. RESULTS: Endoleaks and calcifications were present in 25.9 % (28/108) and 20.4 % (22/108) of images. The HPI-S images had a sensitivity/specificity of 54 %/100 % (reader 1) and 57 %/99 % (reader 2), the HPI-M images of 93 %/92 % (reader 1) and 96 %/92 % (reader 2) for detection of endoleaks. For detection of calcifications HPI-S had a sensitivity/specificity of 91 %/99 % (reader 1) and 95 %/97 % (reader 2), the HPI-M images of 91 %/99 % (reader 1) and 91 %/99 % (reader 2), respectively. CONCLUSION: Using HPI-M, DECT enables an accurate diagnosis of endoleaks after EVAR and allows distinguishing between endoleaks and calcifications with high diagnostic accuracy. KEY POINTS: • Dual-energy computed tomography allows the diagnosis of aortic pathologies after EVAR. • Hard plaque imaging algorithms can distinguish between endoleaks and aneurysm sac calcifications. • The modified hard plaque imaging algorithm detects endoleaks with high diagnostic accuracy.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) for detection of endoleaks and aneurysm sac calcifications after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) using hard plaque imaging algorithms. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred five patients received 108 triple-phase contrast-enhanced CT (non-contrast, arterial and delayed phase) after EVAR. The delayed phase was acquired in dual-energy and post-processed using the standard (HPI-S) and a modified (HPI-M) hard plaque imaging algorithm. The reference standard was determined using the triple-phase CT and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. All images were analysed separately for the presence of endoleaks and calcifications by two independent readers; sensitivity, specificity and interobserver agreement were calculated. RESULTS: Endoleaks and calcifications were present in 25.9 % (28/108) and 20.4 % (22/108) of images. The HPI-S images had a sensitivity/specificity of 54 %/100 % (reader 1) and 57 %/99 % (reader 2), the HPI-M images of 93 %/92 % (reader 1) and 96 %/92 % (reader 2) for detection of endoleaks. For detection of calcifications HPI-S had a sensitivity/specificity of 91 %/99 % (reader 1) and 95 %/97 % (reader 2), the HPI-M images of 91 %/99 % (reader 1) and 91 %/99 % (reader 2), respectively. CONCLUSION: Using HPI-M, DECT enables an accurate diagnosis of endoleaks after EVAR and allows distinguishing between endoleaks and calcifications with high diagnostic accuracy. KEY POINTS: • Dual-energy computed tomography allows the diagnosis of aortic pathologies after EVAR. • Hard plaque imaging algorithms can distinguish between endoleaks and aneurysm sac calcifications. • The modified hard plaque imaging algorithm detects endoleaks with high diagnostic accuracy.
Authors: Alla M Rozenblit; Michael Patlas; Ayala T Rosenbaum; Takao Okhi; Frank J Veith; Mitchell P Laks; Zina J Ricci Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-04-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Katherine E Maturen; Patricia A Kleaveland; Ravi K Kaza; Peter S Liu; Leslie E Quint; Shokoufeh H Khalatbari; Joel F Platt Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2011 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Wieland H Sommer; Anno Graser; Christoph R Becker; Dirk A Clevert; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou; Thorsten R C Johnson Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2010-01-22 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Myrna C B Godoy; Ioannis Vlahos; Anno Graser; James Babb; Christianne Leidecker; Michael Macari Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Uma D Numburi; Paul Schoenhagen; Scott D Flamm; Roy K Greenberg; Andrew N Primak; Osama I Saba; Michael L Lieber; Sandra S Halliburton Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Monique Prinssen; Eric L G Verhoeven; Jaap Buth; Philippe W M Cuypers; Marc R H M van Sambeek; Ron Balm; Erik Buskens; Diederick E Grobbee; Jan D Blankensteijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-14 Impact factor: 91.245
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