Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

CEUS versus CT Angiography in the follow-up of abdominal aortic endoprostheses: diagnostic accuracy and activity-based cost analysis

  • ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate diagnostic accuracy and to perform an activity-based cost analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) compared to computed tomography (CT) during annual surveillance after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with endovascular procedure (EVAR).

Materials and methods

This retrospective study included 137 patients in post-EVAR follow-up over a 6-year period (average post-operatory follow-up without aneurysm sac volumetric reduction). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values and accuracy were considered for CEUS using CT angiography (CTA) as reference standard. An activity-based cost analysis was performed to evaluate potential savings due to the introduction of CEUS as an alternative to CT, after the first year of postoperative negative controls.

Results

CEUS reported accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, negative predictive values of 97.4, 96, 100, 100 and 93.1% in the detection and characterization of endoleaks. CEUS cost was € 84.7, and CTA cost was € 157.77, with a differential cost of € 73.07; using CEUS as an alternative to CT allowed a potential saving of 50.052,95 € during follow-up.

Conclusions

CEUS is an accurate and cheap imaging method in post-EVAR follow-up patients, and it could be considered as a valid alternative to CTA, after the first year of negative controls, reducing the number of unnecessary CT examinations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adriaensen M, Bosch JL, Halpern EF et al (2002) elective endovascular versus open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: systematic review of short-term results. Radiology 224(3):739–747. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2243011675

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carrafiello G, Recaldini C, Laganà D et al (2007) Endoleak detection and classification after endovascular treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm: value of CEUS over CTA. Abdom Imaging 33(3):357–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-007-9268-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Harris P, Vallabhaneni S, Desgranges P et al (2000) Incidence and risk factors of late rupture, conversion, and death after endovascular repair of infrarenal aortic aneurysms: the EUROSTAR experience. J Vasc Surg 32(4):739–749. https://doi.org/10.1067/mva.2000.109990

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Piscaglia F, Nolsøe C, Dietrich C et al (2011) The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall in der Medizin - European Journal of Ultrasound 33(01):33–59. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1281676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Carrafiello G, Laganà D, Recaldini C et al (2006) Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and computed tomography in classifying endoleaks after endovascular treatment of abdominal aorta aneurysms: preliminary experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 29(6):969–974. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-005-0267-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dill-Macky MJ, Wilson SR, Sternbach Y et al (2007) Detecting endoleaks in aortic endografts using contrast-enhanced sonography. Am J Roentgenol. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.05.0532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Manning BJ, Kristmundsson T, Sonesson B et al (2009) Abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter: a comparison of ultrasound measurements with those from standard and three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction. J Vasc Surg 50(2):263–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2009.02.243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Iezzi R, Basilico R, Giancristofaro D et al (2009) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus color duplex ultrasound imaging in the follow-up of patients after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 49(3):552–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2008.10.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cantisani V, Ricci P, Grazhdani H et al (2011) Prospective comparative analysis of colour-doppler ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance in detecting endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 53(2):551. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2010.12.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Giannoni M, Citone M, Rossini M et al (2012) Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the follow-up of endo-vascular aortic aneurysm repair: an effective and safe surveillance method. Curr Pharm Des 18(15):2214–2222. https://doi.org/10.2174/138161212800099928

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Perini P, Sediri I, Midulla M et al (2012) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus CT angiography in fenestrated EVAR surveillance: a single-center comparison. J Endovasc Ther 19(5):648–655. https://doi.org/10.1583/jevt-12-3909r.1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cantisani V, Grazhdani H, Clevert DA et al (2015) EVAR: benefits of CEUS for monitoring stent-graft status. Eur J Radiol 84(9):1658–1665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chung J, Kordzadeh A, Prionidis I et al (2015) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) versus computed tomography angiography (CTA) in detection of endoleaks in post-EVAR patients. Are delayed type II endoleaks being missed? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Ultrasound 18(2):91–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-014-0154-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Cantisani V, Grazhdani H, Di Marzo L et al (2016) What is the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation of the endoleak of aortic endoprostheses? A comparison between CEUS and CT on a widespread scale. J Ultrasound 19(4):281–287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-016-0222-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Abraha I, Luchetta ML, De Florio R et al (2017) Ultrasonography for endoleak detection after endoluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd010296.pub2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Gruppo di lavoro misto SIRM-SNR IMS (2006) Sago S.p.A. Metologia di determinazione dei volumi di attività e della produttività dei medici radiologi. Nomenclatore SIRM-SNR delle prestazioni radiologiche; p 15, Tav III

  17. Grisi G, Stacul F, Cuttin R et al (2000) Cost analysis of different protocols for imaging a patient with acute flank pain. Eur Radiol 10(10):1620–1627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300000549

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Faccioli N, D’Onofrio M, Comai A et al (2007) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the characterization of benign focal liver lesions: activity-based cost analysis. Radiol Med (Torino) 112(6):810–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-007-0185-x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Jonk YC, Kane RL, Lederle FA et al (2007) Cost-effectiveness of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 23(02):205–215. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462307070316

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Verona, Policlinico G.B. Rossi, Piazzale L.A. Scuro, 37134, Verona, Italy

    Niccolo’ Faccioli, Giovanni Foti, Giulia Casagranda, Elena Santi & Mirko D’Onofrio

Authors
  1. Niccolo’ Faccioli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Giovanni Foti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Giulia Casagranda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elena Santi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mirko D’Onofrio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niccolo’ Faccioli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

All the authors declare that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent for CEUS, CT and MR was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. This single-center retrospective study received IRB approval.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Faccioli, N., Foti, G., Casagranda, G. et al. CEUS versus CT Angiography in the follow-up of abdominal aortic endoprostheses: diagnostic accuracy and activity-based cost analysis. Radiol med 123, 904–909 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-018-0926-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-018-0926-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation