Literature DB >> 32964768

Image Fusion During Standard and Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair, to Fuse or Not to Fuse? A Meta-analysis and Additional Data From a Single-Center Retrospective Cohort.

Sabrina A N Doelare1, Stefan P M Smorenburg1, Theodorus G van Schaik1, Jan D Blankensteijn1, Willem Wisselink1, Johanna H Nederhoed1, Rutger J Lely2, Arjan W J Hoksbergen1, Kak Khee Yeung1,3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine if image fusion will reduce contrast volume, radiation dose, and fluoroscopy and procedure times in standard and complex (fenestrated/branched) endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was performed in December 2019 to identify articles describing results of standard and complex EVAR procedures using image fusion compared with a control group. Study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the methodological quality of the included publications were performed by 2 reviewers working independently. Primary outcomes of the pooled analysis were contrast volume, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, and procedure time. Eleven articles were identified comprising 1547 patients. Data on 140 patients satisfying the study inclusion criteria were added from the authors' center. Mean differences (MDs) are presented with the 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS: For standard EVAR, contrast volume and procedure time showed a significant reduction with an MD of -29 mL (95% CI -40.5 to -18.5, p<0.001) and -11 minutes (95% CI -21.0 to -1.8, p<0.01), respectively. For complex EVAR, significant reductions in favor of image fusion were found for contrast volume (MD -79 mL, 95% CI -105.7 to -52.4, p<0.001), fluoroscopy time (MD -14 minutes, 95% CI -24.2 to -3.5, p<0.001), and procedure time (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -75.7 to -27.9, p<0.001).
CONCLUSION: The results of this meta-analysis confirm that image fusion significantly reduces contrast volume, fluoroscopy time, and procedure time in complex EVAR but only contrast volume and procedure time for standard EVAR. Though a reduction was suggested, the radiation dose was not significantly affected by the use of fusion imaging in either standard or complex EVAR.

Entities:  

Keywords:  contrast volume; endovascular aneurysm repair; fenestrated/branched EVAR; fluoroscopy time; fusion imaging; image fusion; meta-analysis; procedure time; radiation dose; systematic review

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32964768      PMCID: PMC7816548          DOI: 10.1177/1526602820960444

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Endovasc Ther        ISSN: 1526-6028            Impact factor:   3.487


  33 in total

1.  Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.

Authors:  Karem Slim; Emile Nini; Damien Forestier; Fabrice Kwiatkowski; Yves Panis; Jacques Chipponi
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 1.872

2.  Evaluation of visceral artery displacement by endograft delivery system insertion.

Authors:  Blandine Maurel; Adrien Hertault; Teresa Martin Gonzalez; Jonathan Sobocinski; Marielle Le Roux; Jessica Delaplace; Richard Azzaoui; Marco Midulla; Stéphan Haulon
Journal:  J Endovasc Ther       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 3.487

3.  A novel tool for three-dimensional roadmapping reduces radiation exposure and contrast agent dose in complex endovascular interventions.

Authors:  Lars Stangenberg; Fahad Shuja; Bart Carelsen; Thijs Elenbaas; Mark C Wyers; Marc L Schermerhorn
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2015-06-10       Impact factor: 4.268

4.  Pros and Cons of 3D Image Fusion in Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Seline R Goudeketting; Stefan G H Heinen; Çağdaş Ünlü; Daniel A F van den Heuvel; Jean-Paul P M de Vries; Marco J van Strijen; Anna M Sailer
Journal:  J Endovasc Ther       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 3.487

5.  Fusion Imaging for EVAR with Mobile C-arm.

Authors:  Adrien Kaladji; Alexandre Villena; Remy Pascot; Florent Lalys; Anne Daoudal; Elodie Clochard; Antoine Lucas; Alain Cardon
Journal:  Ann Vasc Surg       Date:  2018-08-06       Impact factor: 1.466

6.  Meta-analysis of Cumulative Radiation Duration and Dose During EVAR Using Mobile, Fixed, or Fixed/3D Fusion C-Arms.

Authors:  Quirina M B de Ruiter; Johannes B Reitsma; Frans L Moll; Joost A van Herwaarden
Journal:  J Endovasc Ther       Date:  2016-09-08       Impact factor: 3.487

Review 7.  Complications and Reinterventions After Fenestrated and Branched EVAR in Patients with Paravisceral and Thoracoabdominal Aneurysms.

Authors:  Ivan Kuang Hsin Huang; Seyed Ameli Renani; Robert A Morgan
Journal:  Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol       Date:  2018-03-06       Impact factor: 2.740

8.  Impact of hybrid rooms with image fusion on radiation exposure during endovascular aortic repair.

Authors:  A Hertault; B Maurel; J Sobocinski; T Martin Gonzalez; M Le Roux; R Azzaoui; M Midulla; S Haulon
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 7.069

9.  The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

Authors:  Alessandro Liberati; Douglas G Altman; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Cynthia Mulrow; Peter C Gøtzsche; John P A Ioannidis; Mike Clarke; P J Devereaux; Jos Kleijnen; David Moher
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Automatic detection of selective arterial devices for advanced visualization during abdominal aortic aneurysm endovascular repair.

Authors:  Simon Lessard; Claude Kauffmann; Marcus Pfister; Guy Cloutier; Éric Thérasse; Jacques A de Guise; Gilles Soulez
Journal:  Med Eng Phys       Date:  2015-09-09       Impact factor: 2.242

View more
  1 in total

1.  The Current Era of Endovascular Aortic Interventions and What the Future Holds.

Authors:  Martin Teraa; Constantijn E V B Hazenberg
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-10-06       Impact factor: 4.964

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.