Safety of Utilizing Ultrasound as the Sole Modality of Follow-Up after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.

BACKGROUND

Post endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), surveillance with computed tomography-aortography (CTA) remains the most common practice, per Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) guidelines. Chronic exposure to both radiation and intravenous (IV) contrast has raised concerns about long-term CTA follow-up (FU). As we have selectively used ultrasound (US) as a sole modality for post-EVAR surveillance, we sought to review our outcomes in this subset of patients.

METHODS

Retrospective review of our institution's vascular database identified 213 EVAR patients from 2013 to 2021. Fenestrated-EVAR and snorkel reconstructions were excluded. Patient demographics/outcomes, abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) characteristics, and FU modalities and outcomes were analyzed. Unpaired Student's t-test, ANOVA, and chi-squared test were used to assess group differences.

RESULTS

Eighty-five of the 213 EVAR patients (39.9%) were lost to FU within 3 months. Among the 128 remaining patients, 91 underwent FU using initial US, while 37 patients underwent post-EVAR FU initially using CTA. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between patient age (75.5 ± 9.4 vs. 75.3 ± 8.5), body mass index (BMI) (27.7 ± 5.4 vs. 28.9 ± 7.4), or mean AAA size (5.6 ± 1.1 vs. 5.9 ± 1.2) in US-surveilled and computed tomography (CT)-surveilled groups, respectively. Of the 91 patients, initially surveilled with US, 15 patients demonstrated endoleak and/or AAA growth (>5 mm). The 15 patients with US-demonstrated endoleak and/or growth underwent confirmatory CTA, with 3 patients eventually requiring EVAR revision. Among 37 patients initially surveilled with CT, 10 demonstrated significant growth and 2 patients eventually required EVAR revision. There were no patients with AAA rupture during post-EVAR surveillance. FU data were analyzed among a select lower-risk group of patients (preoperative AAA diameter ≤5.5 cm, BMI ≤30, and no endoleak at completion of EVAR). Among this group, there were no surveilled patients who required EVAR reintervention, regardless of surveillance modality (US n = 32; CT n = 4). The average FU was 29.5 ± 26.4 months in the US group and 26.4 ± 22.3 months in the CT group (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although initial CT surveillance following EVAR remains ideal, in select lower-risk patients, US is a viable alternative even for the initial post-procedure study. Advantages include decreased radiation exposure and cost. Our data suggest that US is a safe sole modality for surveillance following EVAR in selective patients.