Three-dimensional ultrasound volume and conventional ultrasound diameter changes are equally good markers of endoleak in follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair

Abstract

IntroductionThe main disadvantages of computed tomography angiography (CTA) in follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair are the risks of contrast-induced renal impairment and radiation-induced cancer. Three-dimensional ultrasound is a new technique for volume estimation of the aneurysm sac. Some studies have reported promising results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy and precision of three-dimensional ultrasound aneurysm sac-volume estimates, and to explore whether volume and/or diameter changes on ultrasound can be used as markers of endoleak. MethodsA single-center diagnostic accuracy study was performed. A total of 92 patients planned for endovascular aneurysm repair were prospectively and consecutively enrolled (2013-2016). Aneurysm sac diameter and volume were measured using CTA, conventional ultrasound, and three-dimensional ultrasound preoperatively and 1, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Three-dimensional ultrasound was performed with a commercially available electromechanical transducer. Patients with endoleak were observed 5 years after endovascular aneurysm repair. ResultsA total of 79 men and 13 women were included. Mean age was 74 years (57-92 years). Median follow-up was 24 months. Endoleak cases were observed for up to 55 months. Diameter measurements on conventional ultrasound correlated well with CT diameters (r = 0.9, P < .05, n = 347), and Bland-Altman analyses showed an upper limit of agreement of +0.5 cm and a lower limit of agreement of −0.8 cm. The mean difference was −0.13 cm ± 0.36 cm. Three-dimensional ultrasound volumes had a correlation with CTA diameters of r = 0.8 (P < .05, n = 347) and with three-dimensional CT volumes of r = 0.8 (P < .05, n = 155). Receiver operating characteristic analyses showed that the diameter and volume changes that led to reintervention were most accurate at 24-month follow-up, with area-under-the-curve percentage changes of 0.98 (two-dimensional ultrasound), 0.97 (three-dimensional ultrasound), and 0.97 (two-dimensional CT). DiscussionBoth diameter and volume changes can be used as markers for endoleak with excellent areas under the curve on receiver operating characteristic analyses. However, three-dimensional ultrasound volumes did not add any further diagnostic information. Conventional 2D diameter measurements were as accurate as volume changes as markers of endoleak. ConclusionsType II endoleaks can safely be followed up using a simple diameter measurement on conventional ultrasound.