The Use of Advanced Three-Dimensional Computed Tomography During Simple and Complex Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repairs

Abstract

ObjectivesEndovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) success depends on imaging technology both in the planning and operative phases. Endovascular repair requires intravenous contrast and radiation exposure to the patient as well as radiation exposure to the operator. Recent developments in imaging technology attempt to merge preoperative imaging with intraoperative imaging to improve the efficiency and accuracy of EVAR. The Cydar 3D imaging system combines the preoperative and intraoperative imaging during the operation. We aim to investigate the use of the Cydar 3D imaging system during EVAR compared to conventional methods. MethodRetrospective review of all patients undergoing an EVAR at a single quaternary vascular center from 2019-2023 was collected. This cohort was divided into two groups: (1) Repair using Cydar 3D imaging or (2) Repair without Cydar 3D imaging. Overall, 138 unique patients were identified with 27 operations using Cydar 3D imaging and 111 operations without Cydar 3D imaging. We performed a 1-to-1 propensity score – matched analysis using nearest-neighbor matching for variables including age, case urgency, and if the case was performed in the operative room or interventional radiology room. A match occurred when a patient in the Cydar 3D imaging group had an estimated score within 0.01 standard deviations of a patient in the control group. From this we paired 27 from each cohort for a total of 54 patients. Demographic data included length of stay (LOS) in days, contrast volume (ml), Fluoroscopy time (min), procedure length (mins), mortality, blood loss (ml). Univariate analyses were performed and a p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. ResultsA total of 54 vascular patients were analyzed: 27 without the Cydar 3D imaging and 27 with the Cydar 3D imaging. In the univariate analysis there was no statistical difference in the average length of stay (6.4 days ± 11.76 vs. 4.1 ± 6.03, p = 0.372), aneurysm size (5.9 ± 1.4 vs. 5.9 ± 1.2, p=0.88), contrast volume in mL (91.3 ± 47.0 vs. 91.1-33.49, p=9.88), fluoroscopy time in mins (20.2±17.2 vs. 19.5±19.4, p=0.89) , procedure length (299.3±177.9 vs. 353±191.98, p=0.279), blood loss in mL (513.8±791 vs. 353±191.98, p=0.594). There was an increase in reintervention for endoleaks in the group with use of Cydar 3D imaging (0 vs 6, p=0.043). A sub-analysis of patients undergoing physician modified EVARs did show a 15% reduction in the contrast volume used. ConclusionThe use of 3D imaging technology has the potential to increase the safety of EVAR to both patients and operators. In our study we did not find any difference in standard EVARs however there was a contrast use decrease in physician modified EVARs. Further studies will need to be performed to determine the realized benefit from performing EVARs using this new technology.