1. Impact of Cone Beam Computed Tomography in Advanced Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Using Last Generation 3D C-arm
- Author
-
Francesco Onorati, Paolo Criscenti, Giacomo Abatucci, Gian Franco Veraldi, Davide Mastrorilli, Luca Mezzetto, Lorenzo Scorsone, Edoardo Veraldi, Marco Macrì, and Stefano Gennai
- Subjects
Male ,medicine.medical_specialty ,Cone beam computed tomography ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,030218 nuclear medicine & medical imaging ,03 medical and health sciences ,Aortic aneurysm ,0302 clinical medicine ,Aneurysm ,Risk Factors ,medicine ,Humans ,In patient ,Prospective Studies ,Endovascular treatment ,Aorta ,Aged ,Aged, 80 and over ,Aortic aneurysm repair ,medicine.diagnostic_test ,business.industry ,Endovascular Procedures ,Angiography, Digital Subtraction ,Equipment Design ,General Medicine ,Digital subtraction angiography ,Cone-Beam Computed Tomography ,Plastic Surgery Procedures ,medicine.disease ,Aortic surgery ,Aortic Aneurysm ,Surgery, Computer-Assisted ,Female ,Surgery ,Radiology ,Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine ,business - Abstract
Background To report the early outcomes of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) using last generation 3D C-arm in patients undergone advanced endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (AdEVAR) and to identify risk factors that may predict any un-planned procedures. Methods Patients undergone AdEVAR between December 2017 and December 2018 were enrolled. Final CBCT was performed in all patients after digital subtraction angiography. Primary end points were the incidence of any positive findings and the following unplanned procedures intended as any endovascular manoeuvre performed to fix such technical defect. The secondary endpoints were comparison of outcomes between patients with positive findings undergone unplanned procedure (Group A) versus patients without findings (Group B). Results 132 patients underwent endovascular treatment for aortic aneurysm. Of these, 22 (33%) fenestrated-branched endovascular aneurysm repairs (F-BEVAR), 21 (29%) EVAR with iliac branch devices, 19 (26%) abdominal and 10 (14%) thoracic EVAR were included in the study. Unplanned procedures after CBCT were necessary in 22 patients (31%). Patients in both groups were similar excepted for BMI >25 kg/m2 (55% vs. 26%), hostile iliac anatomy (64% vs. 32%) and previous aortic treatment (73% vs. 32%) (P Conclusion The use of CBCT, especially in challenging scenarios, can reveal technical defects and may potentially limit the need for late reintervention. Patients undergone previous aortic surgery should be carefully evaluated and routine CBCT should be performed.
- Published
- 2022