Peroperative Intravascular Ultrasound for Endovascular Aneurysm Repair versus Peroperative Angiography: A Pilot Study in Fit Patients with Favorable Anatomy.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) assistance for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) to standard assistance by angiography. METHODS: From June 2015 to June 2017, 173 consecutive patients underwent EVAR. In this group, 69 procedures were IVUS-assisted with X-ray exposure limited to completion angiography for safety purposes because an IVUS probe does not yet incorporate a duplex probe (group A), and 104 were angiography-assisted procedures (group B). All IVUS-assisted procedures were performed by vascular surgeons with basic duplex ultrasound (DUS) training. The primary study endpoints were mean radiation dose, duration of fluoroscopy, amount of contrast media administered, procedure-related outcomes, and renal clearance expressed as the glomerular filtration rate (GFR) before and after the procedure. Secondary endpoints were operative mortality, morbidity, and arterial access complications. RESULTS: Mean duration of fluoroscopy time was significantly lower for IVUS-assisted procedures (24 ± 15 min vs. 40 ± 30 min for angiography-assisted procedures, P < 0.01). Moreover, mean radiation dose (Air KERMA) was significantly lower in IVUS-assisted procedures (76m Gy [44-102] vs. 131 mGy [58-494]), P < 0.01. IVUS-assisted procedures required fewer contrast media than standard angiography-assisted procedures (60 ± 20 mL vs. 120 ± 40 mL, P < 0.01). The mean duration of the procedure was comparable in the two groups (120 ± 30 min vs. 140 ± 30 min, P = 0.07). No difference in renal clearance before and after the procedure was observed in either of the two groups (99.0 ± 4/97.8 ± 2 mL/min in group A and 98.0 ± 3/97.6 ± 5 mL/min in group B) (P = 0.28). The mean length of follow-up was nine months (6-30 months). No postoperative mortality, morbidity, or arterial access complications occurred. No type 1 endoleak was observed. Early type II endoleaks were observed in 21 patients (11%), 12 in the angiography-assisted group (11%) and nine in the IVUS-assisted group (12%). They were not associated with sac enlargement ≥5 mm diameter and therefore did not require any additional treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard angiography-assisted EVAR, IVUS significantly reduces renal load with contrast media, fluoroscopy time, and radiation dose while preserving endograft deployment efficiency. Confirmation from a large prospective study with improved IVUS probes will be required before IVUS-assisted EVAR alone can become standard practice.