Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Vascular Surgery: Review and Update.

Accurate imaging methods associated with minimum patient risk are important tools for clinical decision-making in vascular surgery. Today, traditional imaging methods, such as computed tomography angiography, magnetic resonance angiography, and digital subtraction angiography are the preferred modalities. Ultrasound has only challenged these methods in assessment of carotid disease, aortic aneurysms, venous insufficiency, and thromboembolism and in surveillance of in situ bypasses. These practice patterns may change with the introduction of second-generation ultrasound contrast agents which are easy to use, manageable, and safe. This topical review attempts to summarize and highlight the current evidence and future prospects for contrast-enhanced ultrasound in vascular surgery, with a particular focus on opportunities in carotid and lower limb arteriosclerotic disease and surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair.

Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound arterial mapping in surgical planning for patients with critical limb ischemia.

The goal of the study described here was to evaluate the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) arterial mapping in surgical planning in cases of critical limb ischemia. From March 2007 to December 2012, 565 consecutive patients with critical limb ischemia of the lower limbs were treated and initially examined with only ultrasound (US) arterial mapping. For 479 of the 565 patients, basic US examination results were deemed sufficient for surgical planning (group A). That is, US examination provided sufficient information to decide a surgical plan to treat those patients. In the remaining 86 patients, basic US examination was insufficient for revascularization planning, and CEUS examination was performed (group B). In 5 cases, CEUS results were also insufficient for surgical planning, as a suitable outflow vessel was not visualized. In these cases, a pre-operative arteriogram was performed. To assess the usefulness of CEUS, we compared results of examinations with and without contrast administration, surgical findings and angiographic findings when available. Data were collected prospectively. Examinations were compared by establishing the degree of agreement between results of paired examinations and degree of agreement between CEUS results and surgical findings. Clinical, hemodynamic (ankle-brachial index) and duplex follow-up was performed at 1 and 3 mo to evaluate cumulative patency of the procedures in each group. Within group B, degree of agreement between basic US and CEUS was 46.5%. CEUS resulted in a change in the surgical plan in 46 of 86 patients. Among all 565 patients, degree of agreement between surgical decision based on basic ultrasound arterial mapping and final decision based on surgical findings was 87.1%, and improved to 95.2% with CEUS (p = 0.00001, κ index = 0.823). Degree of agreement between the ultrasound-based decision and surgical findings was 97.5% in group A (κ index = 0.818) and 94.2% in group B (κ = 0.848). There was no significant difference between groups (p = 0.784). Within group B, of the five arteriograms performed, results of only one matched well the US mapping findings. Vessel patency at 1 and 3 mo did not significantly differ between patients whose surgical planning was based on basic US and patients whose planning was based on CEUS (p = 0.418 and p = 0.489, respectively). US arterial mapping is an excellent tool for surgical planning in critical limb ischemia. CEUS arterial mapping improves the accuracy of ultrasound examination in patients with critical limb ischemia, especially in patients with inconclusive non-enhanced exams.