Nicholas J Swerdlow1, Douglas W Jones2, Alexander B Pothof3, Thomas F X O'Donnell1, Patric Liang1, Chun Li1, Mark C Wyers1, Marc L Schermerhorn4. 1. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. 2. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass. 3. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass; Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: mscherm@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional (3D) image fusion is associated with lower radiation exposure, contrast agent dose, and operative time during endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Therefore, we evaluated the impact of this technology on carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: We identified consecutive CAS procedures from 2009 to 2017 and compared those performed with and without 3D image fusion. For image fusion, we created a 3D reconstruction of the aortic arch anatomy based on preoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography that we merged with two-dimensional fluoroscopy, allowing 3D image overlay. We compared radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, contrast agent dose, time to common carotid artery (CCA) cannulation, time from CCA cannulation to completion angiography, and total procedure time in procedures with and without image fusion. We also assessed rates of 30-day stroke/death, in-hospital and 30-day stroke, and acute kidney injury. We used multivariable linear regression to adjust for patient and procedural characteristics and used these models to compute the marginal effects of image fusion compared with no image fusion. RESULTS: There were 46 patients who underwent CAS with a 3D image fusion system and 70 patients without. Patients undergoing CAS with image fusion experienced 31% lower radiation exposure compared with the control group (207 ± 23 mGy vs 300 ± 26 mGy, respectively; P < .01), shorter fluoroscopy time (21 ± 6 minutes vs 24 ± 8 minutes; P = .02), shorter time to carotid cannulation (21 ± 9 minutes vs 31 ± 8 minutes; P < .001), and shorter total procedure time (47 ± 13 minutes vs 54 ± 18 minutes; P = .03). There was no difference in contrast material volume, time from CCA cannulation to completion angiography, or total in-room time. After multivariable adjustment, 3D image fusion remained associated with lower radiation dose, shorter fluoroscopy time, and shorter time to carotid cannulation (all P < .05). The rate of 30-day stroke/death was 2.7% (three strokes and no deaths at 30 days), and the rate of acute kidney injury was 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS: CAS with 3D image fusion was associated with lower radiation exposure and shorter time to CCA cannulation. These results represent the potential technical advantage gained with image fusion and add to the growing body of evidence demonstrating its impact on radiation exposure and operative times during complex endovascular procedures.
OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional (3D) image fusion is associated with lower radiation exposure, contrast agent dose, and operative time during endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Therefore, we evaluated the impact of this technology on carotid artery stenting (CAS). METHODS: We identified consecutive CAS procedures from 2009 to 2017 and compared those performed with and without 3D image fusion. For image fusion, we created a 3D reconstruction of the aortic arch anatomy based on preoperative computed tomography or magnetic resonance angiography that we merged with two-dimensional fluoroscopy, allowing 3D image overlay. We compared radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time, contrast agent dose, time to common carotid artery (CCA) cannulation, time from CCA cannulation to completion angiography, and total procedure time in procedures with and without image fusion. We also assessed rates of 30-day stroke/death, in-hospital and 30-day stroke, and acute kidney injury. We used multivariable linear regression to adjust for patient and procedural characteristics and used these models to compute the marginal effects of image fusion compared with no image fusion. RESULTS: There were 46 patients who underwent CAS with a 3D image fusion system and 70 patients without. Patients undergoing CAS with image fusion experienced 31% lower radiation exposure compared with the control group (207 ± 23 mGy vs 300 ± 26 mGy, respectively; P < .01), shorter fluoroscopy time (21 ± 6 minutes vs 24 ± 8 minutes; P = .02), shorter time to carotid cannulation (21 ± 9 minutes vs 31 ± 8 minutes; P < .001), and shorter total procedure time (47 ± 13 minutes vs 54 ± 18 minutes; P = .03). There was no difference in contrast material volume, time from CCA cannulation to completion angiography, or total in-room time. After multivariable adjustment, 3D image fusion remained associated with lower radiation dose, shorter fluoroscopy time, and shorter time to carotid cannulation (all P < .05). The rate of 30-day stroke/death was 2.7% (three strokes and no deaths at 30 days), and the rate of acute kidney injury was 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS:CAS with 3D image fusion was associated with lower radiation exposure and shorter time to CCA cannulation. These results represent the potential technical advantage gained with image fusion and add to the growing body of evidence demonstrating its impact on radiation exposure and operative times during complex endovascular procedures.
Authors: M M Sieren; C Schareck; M Kaschwich; M Horn; F Matysiak; E Stahlberg; F Wegner; T H Oechtering; J Barkhausen; J Goltz Journal: CVIR Endovasc Date: 2021-06-14