PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to computed tomography angiography (CTA) for the detection of endoleaks within EVAR surveillance program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane database was performed. Articles assessing diagnostic accuracy and comparative modality (CTA vs. CEUS) for endoleaks in adult patients within surveillance programs were retrieved. Methodological assessment was performed, using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tools. The sensitivity and specificity of data were extracted and statistical analysis was performed using MetaDiSc version 1.4. RESULTS: Eight articles were found eligible (n = 454 patients). The pooled sensitivity of CEUS at detecting endoleak is 0.914 (CI 0.866-0.949) and pooled specificity is 0.782 (CI 0.741-0.820). CONCLUSION: The CEUS with its dynamic nature and longer scanning window demonstrated to be a highly sensitive modality for endoleak detection in comparison to CTA in delayed endoleaks type II.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to computed tomography angiography (CTA) for the detection of endoleaks within EVAR surveillance program. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane database was performed. Articles assessing diagnostic accuracy and comparative modality (CTA vs. CEUS) for endoleaks in adult patients within surveillance programs were retrieved. Methodological assessment was performed, using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tools. The sensitivity and specificity of data were extracted and statistical analysis was performed using MetaDiSc version 1.4. RESULTS: Eight articles were found eligible (n = 454 patients). The pooled sensitivity of CEUS at detecting endoleak is 0.914 (CI 0.866-0.949) and pooled specificity is 0.782 (CI 0.741-0.820). CONCLUSION: The CEUS with its dynamic nature and longer scanning window demonstrated to be a highly sensitive modality for endoleak detection in comparison to CTA in delayed endoleaks type II.
Authors: Marcus J Dill-Macky; Stephanie R Wilson; Yarron Sternbach; John Kachura; Thomas Lindsay Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M Claudon; D Cosgrove; T Albrecht; L Bolondi; M Bosio; F Calliada; J-M Correas; K Darge; C Dietrich; M D'Onofrio; D H Evans; C Filice; L Greiner; K Jäger; N de Jong; E Leen; R Lencioni; D Lindsell; A Martegani; S Meairs; C Nolsøe; F Piscaglia; P Ricci; G Seidel; B Skjoldbye; L Solbiati; L Thorelius; F Tranquart; H P Weskott; T Whittingham Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: Jan A Ten Bosch; Ellen V Rouwet; Cecile T H Peters; Linda Jansen; Hence J M Verhagen; Martin H Prins; Joep A W Teijink Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2010-04-02 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: R G McWilliams; J Martin; D White; D A Gould; P L Harris; S C Fear; J Brennan; G L Gilling-Smith; A Bakran; P C Rowlands Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Jan D Blankensteijn; Sjors E C A de Jong; Monique Prinssen; Arie C van der Ham; Jaap Buth; Steven M M van Sterkenburg; Hence J M Verhagen; Erik Buskens; Diederick E Grobbee Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-06-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Georgios I Karaolanis; Constantine N Antonopoulos; Efstratios Georgakarakos; Georgios D Lianos; Michail Mitsis; Georgios K Glantzounis; Athanasios Giannoukas; George Kouvelos Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 4.964
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