Search

Purpose: To investigate if imaging with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) yields a more accurate estimate of vessel diameter and the presence of dissections than angiography after intervention in the infrapopliteal arteries. Materials and Methods: A prospective, single-center study enrolled 20 consecutive patients (mean age 74.1±12.4 years; 12 women) with infrapopliteal disease who were treated with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA; n=10) or orbital atherectomy (OA) followed by PTA (n=10). The majority of patients were hypertensive and half were diabetic. The overall lesion length was 7.3±6.3 cm, and the diameter stenosis was 80.3%±22.1%. The baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups. Vessel diameters were measured using IVUS from the internal elastic lamina (IEL) to the IEL. IVUS was performed at baseline, post PTA or OA, and post OA+PTA. Quantitative vascular angiography (QVA) and IVUS were analyzed by a core laboratory. Dissections on cine images were categorized based on the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) classification, while the arc and depth were used to characterize dissections on IVUS images. Results: Mean vessel diameter by QVA was 2.9±0.6 vs 4.0±1.0 mm by IVUS according to the core laboratory (mean difference 1.1±0.9, pConclusion: In addition to underestimating the infrapopliteal vessel diameter by ~25%, angiography underappreciated the presence and severity of post-intervention dissections vs IVUS, particularly in the OA+PTA group.

In the August 2020 issue of the JEVT, Shammas et al1 highlighted a crucial point regarding the value of imaging in the treatment of infrapopliteal arterial occlusive disease. The authors compared angiography to intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging in the evaluation of infrapopliteal vessel diameter and the presence and severity of dissections after balloon dilation alone or atherectomy followed by balloon dilation. The findings of their study are of outmost importance since technical details are crucial to success in a challenging vascular district. It is clear that angiography, as a diagnostic tool, is largely inadequate to provide all the necessary information for evaluating both preoperative conditions and treatment outcome. Too many aspects cannot be evaluated by simple contrast imaging, that is, hemodynamic pattern, 3-dimensional distribution of the lesion, and the condition of the arterial wall. Moreover, to characterize any lesion, angiography should be performed in a variety of projections, which has a series of drawbacks. First of all, the amount of contrast medium would increase significantly, with consequences on renal function, which is typically already impaired in atherosclerotic patients. Also, in some projections the target arterial segment may be hidden by bone margin or other arteries. Finally, the hemodynamic aspect cannot be evaluated.2 Up to now, no clear benefit of endovascular techniques has been demonstrated over surgical revascularization in infrainguinal disease.3,4 Plain balloon angioplasty, primary stenting, subintimal angioplasty, atherectomy, bailout stenting, drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty, and so on, have been advocated as the method of choice in treating lower limb occlusive disease without reaching a consensus.5,6 The Shammas study1 focused on infrapopliteal treatment, which is still a particularly challenging field in peripheral revascularization and is associated with poor results.

Purpose: To quantify the error introduced by noncoaxial intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging and to evaluate the use of a balloon-tipped catheter in compensating for intraluminal angulation and subsequent dimensional inaccuracy. Methods: The effect of noncoaxial IVUS imaging was investigated in both a polyvinyl chloride phantom and an in vitro canine aorta using a calibrated setup to measure angulation off axis. Imaging was performed at increasing angulation (creating an elliptical image) in both phantoms, with the transducer centered and off center. Diameters were compared to the original coaxial diameter, as well as calculated diameters based on specific angles off axis. The percentage change (error) was also calculated at these angles. The measurements were repeated using a balloon-tipped catheter to center the transducer. Results: The measured diameters and percentage changes compared closely with their calculated counterpart. Up to 25° off axis, the apparent increase in diameter measurement was nearly 10%. Angulation from 30° to 70° resulted in an increase of 15% to 192%. Use of the centering balloon reduced the amount of error by 70% to 85% but was limited to angles ≤ 25° due to the design of the test apparatus. Conclusions: The error introduced by noncoaxial IVUS imaging can be significant and may be partially corrected by the use of a centering balloon. Further studies in the clinical application of a centering device are warranted.

To assess the reproducibility of estimating biomechanical parameters of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) based on finite element (FE) computations derived from a commercially available, semiautomatic vascular analyzer that reconstructs computed tomographic angiography (CTA) data into FE models.The CTA data from 10 consecutive male patients (mean age 74 years, range 63-87) with a fusiform infrarenal AAA5 cm in diameter were used for this study, along with the CTA scans from 4 individuals without aortic disease. Three different observers used semiautomatic reconstruction software to create deformable contour models from axial CT scans. These 3-dimensional FE models captured the aortic wall and thrombus tissue using isotropic finite strain constitutive modeling. Geometric (maximum diameter and volume measurements based on an anatomical centerline) and biomechanical determinants [aneurysm peak wall stress (PWS) and the peak wall rupture risk (PWRR) index] were then calculated from the FE models. The determinations were made 5 times for each anonymized dataset presented for analysis in random order (5-fold measurements for 14 datasets produced 210 measurements from the 3 observers). Inter- and intraobserver variability were assessed by calculating the coefficient of variation of these repeated measures. The methodological variations were expressed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots.The median segmentation time was1 hour (mean 39.2 minutes, range 25-48) for datasets from the AAA patients; for the healthy individuals, segmentation times were considerably shorter (median 8.7 minutes, range 4-15). Intraobserver reproducibility was high, as represented by a CV3% for the diameter measurement and5.5% for volume, PWS, and the PWRR index. The ICC was 0.97 (range 0.95-0.98) for diameter and 0.98 (range 0.97-0.99) for volume; for PWS and the PWRR index, the ICCs were equal at 0.98 (range 0.97-0.99).The reproducibility of volume and maximum diameter measurements in infrarenal AAAs with FE analysis is high. With the model used in this semiautomatic reconstruction software, wall stress analysis can be achieved with high agreement among observers and in serial measurements by a single observer.

Purpose: To examine if 3-dimensional (3D) reconstructions of computed tomographic (CT) data, by imaging perpendicular to blood flow, can improve aortic diameter measurement accuracy over axial (2D) CT. Methods: Two independent, blinded observers used electronic calipers to measure the minor axis and the line perpendicular to it on 40 2.5-mm 2D CT scans from 31 patients. A circular electronic tool was used to estimate diameters on 3D reconstructions from the same 40 scans. Measurements of the aortic neck were obtained 5 mm below the renal arteries and the widest slice of the aneurysm was used to measure sac diameter. Only the minor axis was measured at the iliac arteries immediately above the left (LI) and right (RI) iliac bifurcations. Datasets were compared with an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland and Altman variation assessments, and absolute differences. Results: ICC between 2D and 3D scans demonstrated high correlation with 2D minor axis measurements (neck=0.9282, sac=0.8956, RI=0.8755, LI=0.7381). 3D to 2D major axis correlation was lower (neck=0.6388, sac=0.8995). Variation between 3D and 2D minor axis measurements was low (0.51-mm average variation from the mean for the minor axis and 1.30-mm variation for the major axis). Average absolute difference between 3D and 2D diameters was 1.01 mm (minor axis) versus 2.61 mm (major axis). Interobserver correlation was highest for sac measurements both in 2D minor axis (ICC=0.8990) and 3D (ICC=0.9518). Conclusions: Minor axis measurements on axial CT scan can substitute for diameters obtained from 3D reconstructions in most clinical situations.

One of the most fundamental and influential differences between conventional surgery and endovascular grafting for aortic aneurysm is the central role of imaging in every aspect of management. This review summarizes five imaging techniques for aortic endografting: intravascular ultrasound, contrast angiography, conventional computed tomography (CT), spiral CT with image processing, and magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). External ultrasound and intravascular ultrasound have important relevance to endovascular aortic surgery. Artifacts of arteriography include magnification, thrombus effect, foreshortening of tortuosity, loss of luminal detail, parallax error, and projection errors. Conventional CT scans have artifacts and difficulties also. Diameter measurement by CT suffers from methodology errors and observer variability. If conventional CT and angiography are used for endovascular aortic graft planning, both should be obtained since neither alone provides sufficient data. The use of spiral CT scanning and computerized image processing has clearly aided the preoperative definition of aneurysm morphology both in terms of dimensional accuracy and by adding diagnostic information. MRA is capable of producing three-dimensional images, axial sections, and longitudinal projections in any plane. It can detect blood flow without contrast medium, but gadolinium enhances MRA by avoiding the “signal dropout” artifact. Technology exists to provide new forms of imaging for endovascular surgery that combines three-dimensional models with on-line image data in a process called “data fusion.” This may offer improved ease and accuracy for conducting endovascular procedures in the future.

One of the principal reasons for failure of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is the occurrence of endoleaks, which regardless of size or type can transmit systemic pressure to the aneurysm sac. There is little debate that type I endoleaks (poor proximal or distal sealing) are associated with continued risk of aneurysm rupture and require treatment. Similarly, with type III endoleak, there is agreement that the defect in the device needs to be addressed; however, what to do with type II endoleaks and their effect on long-term outcome are not so clear. Aneurysm sac change is a primary parameter for determining the presence of an endoleak and assessing its impact. While diameter measurement has been the most commonly used method for determining sac changes, volume measurement has now been proven superior for monitoring structural changes in the 3-dimensional sac. Determining the source of an endoleak and the direction of flow are necessary for proper classification; however, while computed tomographic angiography has high sensitivity and specificity for detecting endoleaks, it is limited in its ability to show the direction of flow. Contrast-enhanced duplex ultrasound, on the other hand, is better able to quantify flow and characterize endoleaks. Flow is evidence of pressure, and increasing intrasac pressure increases wall tension, thus inducing progressive aneurysm expansion until rupture. Hence, determining intrasac pressure is becoming a vital component of endoleak assessment. All endoleaks can create systemic pressure inside the aneurysm sac, and there are a variety of intrasac pressure transducers being evaluated to assess this effect. A clinical pathway for patients with suspected type II endoleaks is based on a combination of imaging and pressure measurements. Imaging alone requires at least two interval examinations to determine the trend, while pressure measurements give immediate reassurance or an indication to intervene. Although still under development, pressure measurement is destined for general use and will provide a scientific basis for the management of type II endoleaks.