Three-dimensional ultrasound is a reliable alternative in endovascular aortic repair surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional ultrasound (3D-US) has already demonstrated improved reproducibility with a high degree of agreement (intermodality variability), reproducibility (interoperator variability), and repeatability (intraoperator variability) compared with conventional two-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US) when estimating the maximum diameter of native abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). The aim of the present study was, in a clinical, multicenter setting, to evaluate the accuracy of 3D-US with aneurysm model quantification software (3D-US abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA] model) for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) sac diameter assessment vs that of computed tomography angiography (CTA) and 2D-US. METHODS: A total of 182 patients who had undergone EVAR from April 2016 to December 2017 and were compliant with a standardized EVAR surveillance program were enrolled from five different vascular centers (Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark; Catharina Ziekenhuis, Eindhoven, Netherlands; L'hospital de la Timone, Paris, France; Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio; and The Christ Hospital, Cincinnati, Ohio) in four countries. All image acquisitions were performed at the local sites (ie, 2D-US, 3D-US, CTA). Only the 2D-US and CTA readings were performed both locally and centrally. All images were read centrally by the US and CTA core laboratory. Anonymized image data were read in a randomized and blinded manner. RESULTS: The sample used to estimate the accuracy of the 3D-US AAA model and 2D-US included 164 patients and 177 patients, respectively. The Bland-Altman analysis revealed that the mean difference between CTA and 3D-US was -2.43 mm (95% confidence interval [CI], -5.20 to 0.14; P = .07) with a lower and upper limit of agreement of -8.9 mm (95% CI, -9.3 to -8.4) and 2.7 mm (95% CI, 2.3-3.2), respectively. For 2D-US and CTA, the mean difference was -3.62 mm (95% CI, -6.14 to -1.10; P = .002), with a lower and upper limit of agreement of -10.3 mm (95% CI, -10.8 to -9.8) and 2.5 mm (95% CI, 2-2.9), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 3D-US AAA model showed no significant difference compared with CTA for measuring the anteroposterior diameter, indicating less bias for 3D-US compared with 2D-US. Thus, 3D-US with AAA model software is a viable modality for anteroposterior diameter assessment for surveillance after EVAR.

Clinical validation of three-dimensional ultrasound for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: Three-dimensional ultrasound (3D-US) examination is a relatively new modality that can be used for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surveillance, and may offer improved reproducibility over conventional two-dimensional ultrasound (2D-US) examination. The aim of this study was to evaluate the interoperator reproducibility of maximum anterior-to-posterior diameter by nonphysician ultrasound technicians in a typical vascular laboratory setting, on patients with infrarenal AAAs using 3D-US and 2D-US examination. METHODS: A total of 134 consecutive patients with asymptomatic infrarenal AAAs were screened. Of the 134 patients, 28 (21%) were screen failures. From the remaining 106 patients, 3 (2.8%) had missing data and 13 (12.3%) had technically unacceptable image quality. As a result, 90 patients were included for final analysis. Ultrasound image acquisitions were performed during the single visit. The 2D-US images were evaluated at the time of examination by the respective ultrasound technicians who acquired them. All 3D-US images were evaluated offline by both ultrasound technicians after a wash-out period of at least 6 weeks. RESULTS: Excellent interoperator reproducibility was observed for measuring maximum diameter using 3D-US (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.97), and good agreement among ultrasound technicians (mean difference, -0.08 mm; limits of agreement, -3.17; 3.00 mm). When using 3D-US examination, 74 of the 90 patients (82%) were estimated within 2 mm of interoperator variability. Of 90 patients, 52 (58%) were estimated to be within the same variability by 2D-US examination. Estimating AAA diameter using 3D-US was superior to 2D-US with respect to interoperator reproducibility. CONCLUSIONS: Both 3D-US and 2D-US examination demonstrated good reproducibility among two vascular ultrasound technicians with superior agreement from 3D-US examination. The present results support the broader use of 3D-US in standard AAA surveillance programs.

Acute lower extremity ischemia in a 7-year-old boy: an unusual case of popliteal entrapment syndrome.

Popliteal artery entrapment syndrome is a rare cause of acute limb ischemia that most commonly is seen in young adults. The most significant complications associated with popliteal entrapment include aneurysm formation and acute thrombosis. This case presents the youngest patient ever reported with this syndrome and highlights the advantages of multimodal treatment including thrombolysis, popliteal aneurysm resection, and revascularization. Although a significant body of literature exists on popliteal entrapment syndrome in teenagers and young adults, it has not been reported previously in a patient younger than 11 years. Limb salvage was achieved in this patient with a combination of endovascular and surgical techniques.

Is carotid angioplasty and stenting more cost effective than carotid endarterectomy?

OBJECTIVE: Carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) has been advocated as a minimally invasive and inexpensive alternative to carotid endarterectomy (CEA). However, a precise comparative analysis of the immediate and long-term costs associated with these two procedures has not been performed. To accomplish this, a Markov decision analysis model was created to evaluate the relative cost effectiveness of these two interventions. METHODS: Procedural morbidity/mortality rate for CEA and costs (not charges) were derived from a retrospective review of consecutive patients treated at New York Presbyterian Hospital/Cornell (n = 447). Data for CAS were obtained from the literature. We incorporated into this model both the immediate procedural costs and the long-term cost of morbidities, such as stroke (major stroke in the first year = $52,019; in subsequent years = $27,336/y; minor stroke = $9419). We determined long-term survival rate in quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs for a hypothetic cohort of 70-year-old patients undergoing either CEA or CAS. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: The immediate procedural costs of CEA and CAS were $7871 and $10,133 respectively. We assumed major plus minor stroke rates for CEA and CAS of 0.9% and 5%, respectively. We assumed a 30-day mortality rate of 0% for CEA and 1.2% for CAS. In our base case analysis, CEA was cost saving (lifetime savings = $7017/patient; increase in quality-adjusted life years saved = 0.16). Sensitivity analysis revealed major stroke and death rates as the major contributors to this differential in cost effectiveness. Procedural costs were less important, and minor stroke rates were least important. CAS became cost effective only if its major stroke and mortality rates were made equivalent to those of CEA. CONCLUSION: CEA is cost saving compared with CAS. This is related to the higher rate of stroke with CAS and the high cost of stents and protection devices. To be economically competitive, the mortality and major stroke rates of CAS must be at least equivalent if not less than those of CEA.

Endarterectomy vs stent angioplasty: what is the optimal treatment of carotid stenosis?

Very few operations have been subject to more scientific scrutiny than carotid endarterectomy (CEA). Since its introduction in the 1950s, CEAs have been performed in great numbers with the goal of preventing ischemic stroke. In the mid 1980s concern about over utilization of CEA and reports of excessive perioperative stroke morbidity and mortality prompted the initiation of several multicenter, randomized trials designed to evaluate the efficacy of CEA. As the results of these trials became available, the number and frequency of CEA in the United States increased significantly. However, now a new wave of uncertainty has arisen related to the availability of an alternative to CEA, carotid angioplasty and stent (CAS). Now, more than ever, there is uncertainty as to the proper management of carotid artery stenosis. In this review we summarize the existing data regarding the efficacy of CEA and compare these data to a critical analysis of the recent results of CAS.

The cost-effectiveness of a "quick-screen" program for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is increasing, and the prognosis of ruptured AAA remains dismal. Early diagnosis and intervention are crucial. We designed this study to determine whether selected population screening with a brief "quick-screen" ultrasound could be cost-effective. METHODS: A series of 25 patients with risk factors for AAA were evaluated in a blinded fashion by a quick-screen ultrasound and a full conventional study. Times and accuracy for the 2 approaches were compared. An analysis of the cost-effectiveness of screening for AAA was then performed using a Markov model. We determined the long-term survival in quality-adjusted life years and lifetime costs for a hypothetical cohort of 70-year-old males undergoing either AAA screening or not. Our measure of outcome was the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER). RESULTS: The average time for a quick screen was one-sixth that of a conventional study (4 vs 24 minutes). The accuracy of the quick screen was 100%. In our base-case analysis, screening for AAA was cost-effective with a CER of $11,215. Society usually is willing to pay for interventions with CER of less than $60,000 (eg, CER for coronary artery bypass grafting, $9500; breast cancer screening, $16,000). In sensitivity analysis, reducing the cost of screening from $259 (approximate Medicare reimbursement) to $40 (the quick screen) improved the CER to $6850. Moreover, screening populations with increased prevalence of AAA (eg, male with family history [18%]) further improved the CER. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrates that ultrasound screening for AAA should be offered to all males above the age of 60. Widespread screening for AAA should be adopted and reimbursed by Medicare and other insurers.