Next Article in Journal
Differentiation of Cerebral Dissecting Aneurysm from Hemorrhagic Saccular Aneurysm by Machine-Learning Based on Vessel Wall MRI: A Multicenter Study
Previous Article in Journal
Research Advances in Age-Related Macular Degeneration
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 13
10.3390/jcm11133628
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Colour Duplex and/or Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Compared with Computed Tomography Angiography for Endoleak Detection after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Georgios I. Karaolanis
1,*,
Constantine N. Antonopoulos
2,
Efstratios Georgakarakos
3,
Georgios D. Lianos
4,
Michail Mitsis
4,
Georgios K. Glantzounis
4,
Athanasios Giannoukas
5 and
George Kouvelos
5
1
Vascular Unit, Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Ioannina and School of Medicine, 455 00 Ioannina, Greece
2
Department of Vascular Surgery, “Attikon” University Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 124 61 Athens, Greece
3
Department of Vascular Surgery, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, “Democritus” University of Thrace, 681 00 Alexandroupolis, Greece
4
Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Ioannina, 451 10 Ioannina, Greece
5
Department of Vascular Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University Hospital of Larissa, University of Thessaly, 411 10 Larissa, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(13), 3628; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11133628
Submission received: 31 May 2022 / Revised: 14 June 2022 / Accepted: 21 June 2022 / Published: 23 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Vascular Medicine)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aims to assess the role of Color Duplex Ultrasound with or without contrast media for surveillance following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). A systematic search of the literature published until April 2022 was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The pooled rates of endoleak detection through Contrast-Enhanced or Color Duplex Ultrasound (CEUS or CDUS) and Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effect analysis. Thirty-eight studies were considered eligible for inclusion. The total number of patients in the included studies was 5214 between 1997 and 2021. The overall pooled rate of endoleak detection using CDUS and CTA was 82.59% and 97.22%, while the rates for CEUS and CTA were 96.67% and 92.82%, respectively. The findings of the present study support the use of the CEUS for endoleak detection. However, it should be integrated into institutional protocols for EVAR surveillance to further evaluate its clinical utility in the post-EVAR period before it can be recommended as the sole imaging modality after EVAR.

1. Introduction

An increasing number of patients suffering from abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are undergoing endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) as opposed to open surgery. The benefits of EVAR have been proved over time regarding both early and midterm postoperative morbidity and mortality [1,2,3,4]. However, complications, such as endoleaks can pose a significant threat to these patients, leading to more interventions [5]. Endoleak incidence varies by type, and ranges from 4% to 10% for type I and III endoleaks, and from 10% to 27% for type II endoleaks [5]. Lifelong surveillance is necessary to detect an endoleak early and avoid the consequent threat of rupture [6,7,8].
Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) has been the most common modality adopted for surveillance [7,8]. However, it has significant drawbacks such as contrast induced nephropathy, stochastic risk of radiation-induced cancer and cost [7,8]. In order to minimize these events, both the European Society of Vascular Surgery (ESVS) and the North American Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS) recommend the use of colour duplex ultrasound (CDUS) as an accurate imaging tool for postoperative surveillance [7,8]. The adjunction of contrast media to the CDUS (Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound/CEUS) increased the ability to detect endoleaks and direct re-intervention, evidence that has been confirmed in a number of studies [9,10]. However, studies comparing CDUS with CEUS in detecting endoleaks are sparse in the literature [11].
The objective of the present study was to examine the diagnostic accuracy in terms of sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value of CDUS and CEUS compared with CTA for endoleak detection after EVAR. A meta-analysis providing pooled rates of endoleak detection for the three modalities was also performed.

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Information Sources

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for this meta-analysis [12]. We systematically searched Medline (database provider PubMed, from 1966 to April 2022), Scopus, EMBASE (database provider Ovid, from 1980 to April 2022), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (April 2022) for articles of interest. We also performed a snowball process in the reference lists of the eligible articles to capture additional eligible articles. We applied the snowball process as a technique to reveal further relevant and potentially eligible studies by tracking the citations of all eligible studies.

2.2. Search Methodology

We used the following search terms in all possible combinations: “((abdominal aortic aneurysm) OR (endovascular aortic repair)), AND ((duplex ultrasound) OR (contrast-enhanced ultrasound)) AND (surveillance)”. All English-language scientific papers published up to April 2022 were potentially eligible. Two authors (G.K., C.N.A.) independently extracted and analyzed the data and the final decision was reached by consensus. The Newcastle–Ottawa tool (NOS) was applied to evaluate the methodologic quality of the studies [13]. This scale was developed to assess the quality of studies using a “star system” (maximum nine stars), in which a study is judged on three broad perspectives: (1) the selection of the study groups, (2) the comparability of the groups, and (3) the ascertainment of outcome of interest [13].

2.3. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

All the comparison studies on CDUS and/or CEUS and CTA providing data on the detection of endoleak following EVAR were included in the present meta-analysis. Studies focusing only on one imaging technique, studies providing mixed results or studies that did not provide numerical data were excluded from the analysis. We also excluded editorial, commentary and review articles. Duplicates were excluded, and in case of metachronous publications from the same surgical group, only the latest article or the article with the greatest number of patients was included.

2.4. Data Extraction

Data extracted from eligible studies included the first author’s name, study year, study design, total number of patients who underwent surveillance at regular intervals during follow-up by both CDUS (with or without contrast) and CTA scan, number of operators performing CDUS and/or CEUS, type of aortic stents and the mean follow-up (months). The primary outcome was defined as the number of patients detected with an endoleak by CDUS and/or CEUS and CTA scan. Secondary outcomes included the number and type of endoleaks detected during surveillance, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive value of both CDUS (with or without contrast) and CTA scan.
Endoleaks were defined the persistence of blood flow within the aneurysm sac but outside the lumen of the aortic endograft [7]. A categorization of endoleaks was proposed as follows: type I (inadequate seal at proximal or distal end of the endograft): type II (patent aortic branch vessels such as lumbar, inferior mesenteric artery, accessory renal and hypogastric arteries) that demonstrated collateral filling and back bleeding into the aneurysm sac; type III (disconnection of module of fabric disruption); type IV (porosity of the aortic endograft); and type V (continued increase of the aneurysm sac without demonstrable signs on imaging) [7].

2.5. Statistical Analyses

We extracted the number of patients with endoleaks from each of the eligible studies and we thereafter reported them as the proportion of patients with endoleaks among all patients for studies comparing CDUS vs. CTA and CEUS vs. CTA. All values of the studied outcomes were subsequently expressed as proportions and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) and thereafter transformed into quantities according to the Freeman–Tukey variant of the arcsine square root transformed proportion. The pooled effect estimates were calculated as the back-transformation of the weighted mean of the transformed proportions using the DerSimonian–Laird weights of the random effects model and expressed as percent proportions. We used a formal statistical test for heterogeneity (I2 test). Publication bias was assessed using the Egger’s test for small study effects, as well as visual inspection of funnel plots. The STATA statistical software v14 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA) was used for our analyses.

3. Results

3.1. Identification of Relevant Studies

A total of 1540 study titles were identified by the initial search strategy. A review of the titles and abstracts identified that 1435 articles were irrelevant at the first screening stage. One hundred five manuscripts were further evaluated. Of the eligible publications, 78 were excluded for one or more of the following reasons: studies providing data with miscellaneous results (n = 2); no comparative studies (n = 7); studies which did not provide results for the outcomes of interest (n = 5); review articles (n = 44); irrelevant studies (n = 13); commentary (n = 2); editorial (n = 1); non-English (n = 3); studies with duplicated data/patients (n = 1).
Finally, after applying these exclusions, 38 studies [5,9,10,11,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45] corresponding to a total of 5214 patients were identified as potentially eligible for inclusion in the systematic review and meta-analysis after the addition of 11 studies [9,11,16,21,27,31,32,33,34,36,38] resulting from the snowball process (Figure 1). Twenty-seven studies [5,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39] with an overall number of 3583 participants provided data comparing the CDUS with CTA, while 15 studies [9,10,11,19,23,26,28,29,39,40,41,42,43,44,45] with a total number of 1631 patients reported comparative data rely on CEUS and CTA imaging modalities. Six studies [19,23,26,28,29,39] from the same center were included in the present meta-analysis because they provided data separately either for CDUS or CEUS with CTA. Moreover, we included in the present meta-analysis the first published study from the same surgical group instead of the metachronous series, due to presence of more data regarding the main outcome. All the eligible studies of the present meta-analysis are illustrated in Table 1 and Table 2.
Baseline study characteristics of the 43 eligible studies included in the systematic review are presented in Table 1 and Table 2. The included studies were published from 1997 to 2021. Eight studies [14,15,16,18,20,22,25,34] with a total number of 1196 patients comparing CDUS with CTA reported data regarding the comorbidities of the participants. Of these, 635 (53%) were heavy smokers, 1101 (92%) suffered from hypertension, 273 (23%) had diabetes melitus, 527 (44%) had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 763 (64%) had dyslipidemia, 255 (21%) had chronic renal failure, 948 (79%) had coronary artery diseases and 122 (10%) had peripheral arterial diseases. A total of 122 (10%) and 420 (35%) patients had American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) scores of I-II and III-IV, respectively.
Thirteen studies [15,16,17,18,22,23,25,26,30,32,34,37,38] (2482 patients) reported the brand names of the stents. The most used type of stent was Zenith (29%), followed by AneuRx (19%), Excluder (17%), Talent (10%), Endurant (5%) and other commercially aortic endografts (20%).
Twenty-three studies [5,14,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,33,34,35,36,38,39] (3583 patients) compared CDUS and CTA and revealed 887 and 1049 endoleaks, respectively. Using CDUS, type I endoleaks were detected in 24% of patients (n = 211), type II in 72% (n = 645), type III in 3% (n = 26), type IV (n = 1) and type V (n = 4) < 1%. Using CTA, type I endoleaks appeared in 25% of patients (n = 262), type II in 71% (n = 746), type III in 3% (n = 26), type IV < 1% (n = 2) and type V (n = 13) in 1%.
Fifteen studies [9,10,11,19,23,26,28,29,39,40,41,42,43,44,45] (1631 patients) presented data regarding the type of endoleak detected by CEUS and CTA. Using CEUS, type I, II and III endoleaks were detected in 13% (n = 76), 84% (n = 481), and 3% (n = 16) of patients, respectively. Neither type IV nor type V endoleaks were reported. Using CTA, type I, II and III endoleaks were detected in 12% (n = 62), 83% (n = 444) and 4% (n = 22) of patients, respectively. Type IV and V were also reported in <1%.
In most of the studies, CDUS and CEUS were performed by a single experienced physician [11,19,20,21,22,25,27,30,37,40,41,42,43], whereas in other studies two [14,23,26,31,36,38,44] and three or more physicians were responsible for the scans [9,10,16,18,29,34].

3.2. Sensitivity-Specificity-Accuracy and Negative or Positive Predictive Value of CDUS and CEUS

Twenty studies [14,15,16,17,18,19,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,30,31,32,34,35,37,38,39] reported data regarding the sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CDUS to detect endoleak compared with CTA. The sensitivity of CDUS ranged from 40% to 100% [19,32]. The specificity ranged from 84% to 100% [14,24]. The NPV ranged from 71% to 100% [32,38] and the PPV ranged from 39% to 100% [14,15,38]. The accuracy of the method ranged from 82% to 99% [32,38] (Table 1).
Eleven studies reported data regarding the properties of CEUS compared with CTA for the detection of endoleaks. The sensitivity ranged from 44% to 100% [19,26,42]. The specificity ranged from 82% to 100% [11,19,23,40,44]. The NPV ranged from 44% to 100% [42,45], and the PPV ranged from 91% to 100% [44,45]. The accuracy of the method ranged from 89% to 99% [11,23] (Table 2).

3.3. Meta-Analysis

3.3.1. Rates of Endoleak Detection with CDUS and CTA

In all the eligible studies [5,14,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,39], the pooled rate of endoleak detection was 82.59% (95% CI: 69.01–93.23) (Figure 2) and 97.22% (95% CI: 93.13–99.73) (Figure 3) for CDUS and CTA, respectively.

3.3.2. Rates of Endoleak Detection with CEUS and CTA

In all the eligible studies [9,10,11,19,23,26,28,29,39,40,41,42,43,44] the pooled rate of endoleak detection was 96.67% (95% CI: 88.72–100) (Figure 4) and 92.82% (95% CI: 77.39–100) (Figure 5) for CEUS and CTA, respectively.

4. Discussion

This meta-analysis derived from a comprehensive review of retrospective studies provides the most contemporary pooled endoleak outcome rates detected by CDUS and/or CEUS and CTA for patients undergoing EVAR. The pooled rates of endoleak detection were 82.59% and 97.22% for CDUS and CTA, respectively, and when comparing CEUS with CTA, the pooled rates were 96.67% and 92.82%, respectively.
Surveillance after EVAR is universally accepted even though there is currently no ideal frequency or standard regimen. The aim of this surveillance is to predict or detect complications, such as endoleaks or migration of the main graft, postoperatively. Both the ESVS (class I, level of evidence B) and the SVS (Level of recommendation 1 (strong), Quality of evidence B (Moderate)) currently recommend CTA scanning at 1 and 12 months during the first year after EVAR, and if neither endoleak nor aneurysm expansion is detected subsequently, a CDUS follow-up may be a reasonable alternative [7,8].
Although CTA has been characterized as the gold standard imaging modality for the assessment and detection of most EVAR complications due to its ability to perform up to three scans (native, arterial, and delayed phase contrast imaging), some negative aspects (contrast-induced nephropathy, ionising radiation, high cost) limit its frequently repeated use [8]. On the other side, CDUS, which is readily available and non-invasive, offers the possibility of repeated and reliable measurement of maximum aneurysm diameter to detect endoleaks [8].
One decade ago, Mirtza et al. [46], comparing CDUS with CT in 21 studies, reported a pooled rate of endoleak detection by CDUS of 77% (95% CI: 0.64–0.86). Several years later, one more meta-analysis presented similar findings of 74% (95% CI: 0.62–0.83) sensitivity [47]. In our study, the pooled rate of endoleak detection was 82.59%; however, this outcome is derived from 27 studies with a large number of participants and imaging performance.
The addition of microbubbles as ultrasound contrast (CEUS), seems to increase the sensitivity of this imaging modality for endoleak detection [8]. Despite the lack of evidence on the use of its imaging modality, a number of studies in the literature have reported a high accuracy in comparison with CTA [11,26,29]. A systematic review published in 2010 considered seven eligible studies with 288 patients [46] and revealed that the sensitivity of CEUS was 98% (95% CI: 0.90–0.99) for the detection of endoleaks after EVAR compared with CTA. Several years later, another study considered eight studies with an overall number of 454 patients and established that the pooled sensitivity of CEUS for endoleak detection was 91% [48]. In both studies, the authors suggested that CEUS demonstrates a highly sensitive modality for endoleak detection in comparison with CTA, especially in delayed endoleaks of type II. In the present study, a similar trend was observed with the CEUS pooled rate of endoleak detection being slightly higher at 96.67% (95% CI: 88.72–100) than that for CTA.
The downsides of CDUS and CEUS are their dependence on the operator and their level of experience, patient related factors (e.g., obesity, hernias, heavily calcified vessels) and the inability to assess the sealing zone length, stent-graft overlap and device migration. In the former case, the present meta-analysis showed that in most of the cases, only one physician performed both ultrasound modalities in the same session in the same sequence every time. As a result, the risk of intra-observer error is not stratified, although we accept this has probably limited the risk of inter-observer error. It is worth noting that using a second or even third operator would have been of great benefit for settling external validity. Therefore, the minimum number of supervised physicians required for EVAR surveillance using both ultrasound modalities remains an unresolved topic.
There are several limitations of this study, mainly mirroring the limitations of the included studies. Firstly, the surveillance protocol after EVAR is very heterogeneous, with surveillance protocols based on different imaging modalities, frequency of imaging and length of follow-up. Secondly, unlike CTA, the reliability of CDUS and CEUS is accompanied by operator dependency, and its practice requires experience. Ultrasound surveillance of EVAR treated patients requires experienced sonographers but would also draw attention to the fact that little research has been undertaken to identify and overcome the challenges associated with the implementation of vascular ultrasound.

5. Conclusions

CDUS is an imaging modality commonly used with CTA in post-EVAR follow-up. Our study highlighted that CEUS may offer a safe and sensitive modality for endoleak detection. However, it should be integrated into institutional protocols for EVAR surveillance, potentially obviating the need for patient exposure to high radiation doses and nephrotoxic agents in recurrent CTA scans. Further studies with a larger number of patients and experienced physicians are required to evaluate the clinical safety of CEUS and its utility in the post-EVAR period before it can be recommended as the sole imaging modality after EVAR.

Author Contributions

Conception and design: G.I.K. and G.I.K. Analysis and Interpretation: G.I.K., C.N.A., E.G., G.D.L. and G.K. Data Collection: G.I.K., C.N.A., M.M. and G.I.K. Critical revision of the article: G.I.K., M.M., G.K.G., A.G. and G.I.K. Final approval of the article: G.I.K., C.N.A., E.G., G.D.L., M.M., G.K.G., A.G. and G.I.K. Statistical analysis: G.I.K. and C.N.A. Overall responsibility: G.I.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are available in the article. We will willingly share our knowledge, protocol and expertise when asked.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Greenhalgh, R.M.; Brown, L.C.; Kwong, G.P.; Powell, J.T.; Thompson, S.G. Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: Randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004, 364, 843–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Prinssen, M.; Verhoeven, E.L.; Buth, J.; Cuypers, P.W.; van Sambeek, M.R.; Balm, R.; Buskens, E.; Grobbee, D.E.; Blankensteijn, J.D. Dutch Randomized Endovascular Aneurysm Management Trial, G. A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 351, 1607–1618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Becquemin, J.P.; Pillet, J.C.; Lescalie, F.; Sapoval, M.; Goueffic, Y.; Lermusiaux, P.; Steinmetz, E.; Marzelle, J. A randomized controlled trial of endovascular aneurysm repair versus open surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysms in low- to moderate-risk patients. J. Vasc. Surg. 2011, 53, 1167–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Lederle, F.A.; Freischlag, J.A.; Kyriakides, T.C.; Matsumura, J.S.; Padberg, F.T., Jr.; Kohler, T.R.; Kougias, P.; Jean-Claude, J.M.; Cikrit, D.F.; Swanson, K.M.; et al. Long-term comparison of endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012, 367, 1988–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Smith, L.; Thomas, N.; Arnold, A.; Bell, R.; Zayed, H.; Tyrrell, M.; Padayachee, S. Editor’s Choice-A Comparison of Computed Tomography Angiography and Colour Duplex Ultrasound Surveillance Post Infrarenal Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair: Financial Implications and Impact of Different International Surveillance Guidelines. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2021, 62, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Karanikola, E.; Dalainas, I.; Karaolanis, G.; Zografos, G.; Filis, K. Duplex Ultrasound versus Computed Tomography for the Postoperative Follow-Up of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Where Do We Stand Now? Int. J. Angiol. 2014, 23, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Chaikof, E.L.; Dalman, R.L.; Eskandari, M.K.; Jackson, B.M.; Lee, W.A.; Mansour, M.A.; Mastracci, T.M.; Mell, M.; Murad, M.H.; Nguyen, L.L.; et al. The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm. J. Vasc. Surg. 2018, 67, 2–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Wanhainen, A.; Verzini, F.; Van Herzeele, I.; Allaire, E.; Bown, M.; Cohnert, T.; Dick, F.; van Herwaarden, J.; Karkos, C.; Koelemay, M.; et al. Editor’s Choice–European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-iliac Artery Aneurysms. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2019, 57, 8–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Perini, P.; Sediri, I.; Midulla, M.; Delsart, P.; Mouton, S.; Gautier, C.; Pruvo, J.P.; Haulon, S. Single-centre prospective comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and computed tomography angiography after EVAR. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2011, 42, 797–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Ten Bosch, J.A.; Rouwet, E.V.; Peters, C.T.; Jansen, L.; Verhagen, H.J.; Prins, M.H.; Teijink, J.A. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus computed tomographic angiography for surveillance of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2010, 21, 638–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Iezzi, R.; Basilico, R.; Giancristofaro, D.; Pascali, D.; Cotroneo, A.R.; Storto, M.L. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus color duplex ultrasound imaging in the follow-up of patients after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 2009, 49, 552–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gotzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher, D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62, e1–e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Cook, D.A.; Reed, D.A. Appraising the quality of medical education research methods: The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale-Education. Acad. Med. 2015, 90, 1067–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Iscan, H.Z.; Unal, E.U.; Akkaya, B.; Dagli, M.; Karahan, M.; Civelek, I.; Ozbek, M.H.; Okten, R.S. Color Doppler ultrasound for surveillance following EVAR as the primary tool. J. Card. Surg. 2021, 36, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jean-Baptiste, E.; Feugier, P.; Cruzel, C.; Sarlon-Bartoli, G.; Reix, T.; Steinmetz, E.; Chaufour, X.; Chavent, B.; Salomon du Mont, L.; Ejargue, M.; et al. Computed Tomography-Aortography Versus Color-Duplex Ultrasound for Surveillance of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Prospective Multicenter Diagnostic-Accuracy Study (the ESSEA Trial). Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 2020, 13, e009886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Arsicot, M.; Lathelize, H.; Martinez, R.; Marchand, E.; Picquet, J.; Enon, B. Follow-up of aortic stent grafts: Comparison of the volumetric analysis of the aneurysm sac by ultrasound and CT. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2014, 28, 1618–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Baderkhan, H.; Wanhainen, A.; Haller, O.; Bjorck, M.; Mani, K. Editor’s Choice–Detection of Late Complications After Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair and Implications for Follow up Based on Retrospective Assessment of a Two Centre Cohort. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2020, 60, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Schaeffer, J.S.; Shakhnovich, I.; Sieck, K.N.; Kallies, K.J.; Davis, C.A.; Cogbill, T.H. Duplex Ultrasound Surveillance After Uncomplicated Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2017, 51, 295–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Clevert, D.A.; Helck, A.; D’Anastasi, M.; Gurtler, V.; Sommer, W.H.; Meimarakis, G.; Weidenhagen, R.; Reiser, M. Improving the follow up after EVAR by using ultrasound image fusion of CEUS and MS-CT. Clin. Hemorheol. Microcirc. 2011, 49, 91–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nagre, S.B.; Taylor, S.M.; Passman, M.A.; Patterson, M.A.; Combs, B.R.; Lowman, B.G.; Jordan, W.D., Jr. Evaluating outcomes of endoleak discrepancies between computed tomography scan and ultrasound imaging after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2011, 25, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Oikonomou, K.; Ventin, F.C.; Paraskevas, K.I.; Geisselsoder, P.; Ritter, W.; Verhoeven, E.L. Early follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair: Is the first postoperative computed tomographic angiography scan necessary? J. Endovasc. Ther. 2012, 19, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Bargellini, I.; Cioni, R.; Napoli, V.; Petruzzi, P.; Vignali, C.; Cicorelli, A.; Sardella, S.; Ferrari, M.; Bartolozzi, C. Ultrasonographic surveillance with selective CTA after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2009, 16, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Cantisani, V.; Ricci, P.; Grazhdani, H.; Napoli, A.; Fanelli, F.; Catalano, C.; Galati, G.; D’Andrea, V.; Biancari, F.; Passariello, R. Prospective comparative analysis of colour-Doppler ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, computed tomography and magnetic resonance in detecting endoleak after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2011, 41, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Schmieder, G.C.; Stout, C.L.; Stokes, G.K.; Parent, F.N.; Panneton, J.M. Endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair: Duplex ultrasound imaging is better than computed tomography at determining the need for intervention. J. Vasc. Surg. 2009, 50, 1012–1017; discussion 1017–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. AbuRahma, A.F. Fate of endoleaks detected by CT angiography and missed by color duplex ultrasound in endovascular grafts for abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2006, 13, 490–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Giannoni, M.F.; Palombo, G.; Sbarigia, E.; Speziale, F.; Zaccaria, A.; Fiorani, P. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging for aortic stent-graft surveillance. J. Endovasc. Ther. 2003, 10, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sandford, R.M.; Bown, M.J.; Fishwick, G.; Murphy, F.; Naylor, M.; Sensier, Y.; Sharpe, R.; Walker, J.; Hartshorn, T.; London, N.J.; et al. Duplex ultrasound scanning is reliable in the detection of endoleak following endovascular aneurysm repair. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2006, 32, 537–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Bendick, P.J.; Zelenock, G.B.; Bove, P.G.; Long, G.W.; Shanley, C.J.; Brown, O.W. Duplex ultrasound imaging with an ultrasound contrast agent: The economic alternative to CT angiography for aortic stent graft surveillance. Vasc. Endovascular. Surg. 2003, 37, 165–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Henao, E.A.; Hodge, M.D.; Felkai, D.D.; McCollum, C.H.; Noon, G.P.; Lin, P.H.; Lumsden, A.B.; Bush, R.L. Contrast-enhanced Duplex surveillance after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: Improved efficacy using a continuous infusion technique. J. Vasc. Surg. 2006, 43, 259–264; discussion 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Raman, K.G.; Missig-Carroll, N.; Richardson, T.; Muluk, S.C.; Makaroun, M.S. Color-flow duplex ultrasound scan versus computed tomographic scan in the surveillance of endovascular aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 2003, 38, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Golzarian, J.; Murgo, S.; Dussaussois, L.; Guyot, S.; Said, K.A.; Wautrecht, J.C.; Struyven, J. Evaluation of abdominal aortic aneurysm after endoluminal treatment: Comparison of color Doppler sonography with biphasic helical CT. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2002, 178, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. McLafferty, R.B.; McCrary, B.S.; Mattos, M.A.; Karch, L.A.; Ramsey, D.E.; Solis, M.M.; Hodgson, K.J. The use of color-flow duplex scan for the detection of endoleaks. J. Vasc. Surg. 2002, 36, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Parent, F.N.; Meier, G.H.; Godziachvili, V.; LeSar, C.J.; Parker, F.M.; Carter, K.A.; Gayle, R.G.; DeMasi, R.J.; Marcinczyk, M.J.; Gregory, R.T. The incidence and natural history of type I and II endoleak: A 5-year follow-up assessment with color duplex ultrasound scan. J. Vasc. Surg. 2002, 35, 474–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. d’Audiffret, A.; Desgranges, P.; Kobeiter, D.H.; Becquemin, J.P. Follow-up evaluation of endoluminally treated abdominal aortic aneurysms with duplex ultrasonography: Validation with computed tomography. J. Vasc. Surg. 2001, 33, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pages, S.; Favre, J.P.; Cerisier, A.; Pyneeandee, S.; Boissier, C.; Veyret, C. Comparison of color duplex ultrasound and computed tomography scan for surveillance after aortic endografting. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 2001, 15, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Thompson, M.M.; Boyle, J.R.; Hartshorn, T.; Maltezos, C.; Nasim, A.; Sayers, R.D.; Fishwick, G.; Bell, P.R. Comparison of computed tomography and duplex imaging in assessing aortic morphology following endovascular aneurysm repair. Br. J. Surg. 1998, 85, 346–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wolf, Y.G.; Johnson, B.L.; Hill, B.B.; Rubin, G.D.; Fogarty, T.J.; Zarins, C.K. Duplex ultrasound scanning versus computed tomographic angiography for postoperative evaluation of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J. Vasc. Surg. 2000, 32, 1142–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Zannetti, S.; De Rango, P.; Parente, B.; Parlani, G.; Verzini, F.; Maselli, A.; Nardelli, L.; Cao, P. Role of duplex scan in endoleak detection after endoluminal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2000, 19, 531–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Heilberger, P.; Schunn, C.; Ritter, W.; Weber, S.; Raithel, D. Postoperative color flow duplex scanning in aortic endografting. J. Endovasc. Surg. 1997, 4, 262–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. David, E.; Cantisani, V.; Grazhdani, H.; Di Marzo, L.; Venturini, L.; Fanelli, F.; Di Segni, M.; Di Leo, N.; Brunese, L.; Calliada, F.; et al. What is the role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation of the endoleak of aortic endoprostheses? A comparison between CEUS and CT on a widespread scale. J. Ultrasound 2016, 19, 281–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Faccioli, N.; Foti, G.; Casagranda, G.; Santi, E.; D’Onofrio, M. CEUS versus CT Angiography in the follow-up of abdominal aortic endoprostheses: Diagnostic accuracy and activity-based cost analysis. Radiol. Med. 2018, 123, 904–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Abbas, A.; Hansrani, V.; Sedgwick, N.; Ghosh, J.; McCollum, C.N. 3D contrast enhanced ultrasound for detecting endoleak following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2014, 47, 487–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Bredahl, K.K.; Taudorf, M.; Lonn, L.; Vogt, K.C.; Sillesen, H.; Eiberg, J.P. Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound can Replace Computed Tomography Angiography for Surveillance After Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2016, 52, 729–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Motta, R.; Rubaltelli, L.; Vezzaro, R.; Vida, V.; Marchesi, P.; Stramare, R.; Zanon, A.; Battistel, M.; Sommavilla, M.; Miotto, D. Role of multidetector CT angiography and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in redefining follow-up protocols after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Radiol. Med. 2012, 117, 1079–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Pfister, K.; Rennert, J.; Uller, W.; Schnitzbauer, A.A.; Stehr, A.; Jung, W.; Hofstetter, P.; Zorger, N.; Kasprzak, P.M.; Jung, E.M. Contrast harmonic imaging ultrasound and perfusion imaging for surveillance after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair regarding detection and characterization of suspected endoleaks. Clin. Hemorheol. Microcirc. 2009, 43, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mirza, T.A.; Karthikesalingam, A.; Jackson, D.; Walsh, S.R.; Holt, P.J.; Hayes, P.D.; Boyle, J.R. Duplex ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus computed tomography for the detection of endoleak after EVAR: Systematic review and bivariate meta-analysis. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 2010, 39, 418–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Karthikesalingam, A.; Al-Jundi, W.; Jackson, D.; Boyle, J.R.; Beard, J.D.; Holt, P.J.; Thompson, M.M. Systematic review and meta-analysis of duplex ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography or computed tomography for surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair. Br. J. Surg. 2012, 99, 1514–1523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chung, J.; Kordzadeh, A.; Prionidis, I.; Panayiotopoulos, Y.; Browne, T. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) versus computed tomography angiography (CTA) in detection of endoleaks in post-EVAR patients. Are delayed type II endoleaks being missed? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Ultrasound. 2015, 18, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Jcm 11 03628 g001 550
Figure 1. Study flow chart (“Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis” diagram).
Figure 1. Study flow chart (“Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis” diagram).
Jcm 11 03628 g001
Jcm 11 03628 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot presenting the meta-analysis the pooled rate of endoleak detection for CDUS. Event rates in the individual studies presented as squares, with 95% confidence interval (CIs) presented as extending lines. The pooled event rate with its 95% CI is depicted as a diamond. ES: Effect Estimate [5,14,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,39].
Figure 2. Forest plot presenting the meta-analysis the pooled rate of endoleak detection for CDUS. Event rates in the individual studies presented as squares, with 95% confidence interval (CIs) presented as extending lines. The pooled event rate with its 95% CI is depicted as a diamond. ES: Effect Estimate [5,14,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,39].
Jcm 11 03628 g002
Jcm 11 03628 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot presenting the meta-analysis the pooled rate of endoleak detection for CTA. Event rates in the individual studies presented as squares, with 95% confidence interval (CIs) presented as extending lines. The pooled event rate with its 95% CI is depicted as a diamond. ES: Effect Estimate [5,14,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,39].
Figure 3. Forest plot presenting the meta-analysis the pooled rate of endoleak detection for CTA. Event rates in the individual studies presented as squares, with 95% confidence interval (CIs) presented as extending lines. The pooled event rate with its 95% CI is depicted as a diamond. ES: Effect Estimate [5,14,15,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,39].
Jcm 11 03628 g003
Jcm 11 03628 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot presenting the meta-analysis the pooled rate of endoleak detection for CEUS. Event rates in the individual studies presented as squares, with 95% confidence interval (CIs) presented as extending lines. The pooled event rate with its 95% CI is depicted as a diamond. ES: Effect Estimate [9,10,11,19,23,26,28,29,39,40,41,42,43,44].
Figure 4. Forest plot presenting the meta-analysis the pooled rate of endoleak detection for CEUS. Event rates in the individual studies presented as squares, with 95% confidence interval (CIs) presented as extending lines. The pooled event rate with its 95% CI is depicted as a diamond. ES: Effect Estimate [9,10,11,19,23,26,28,29,39,40,41,42,43,44].
Jcm 11 03628 g004
Jcm 11 03628 g005 550
Figure 5. Forest plot presenting the meta-analysis the pooled rate of endoleak detection for CTA. Event rates in the individual studies presented as squares, with 95% confidence interval (CIs) presented as extending lines. The pooled event rate with its 95% CI is depicted as a diamond. ES: Effect Estimate [9,10,11,19,23,26,28,29,39,40,41,42,43,44].
Figure 5. Forest plot presenting the meta-analysis the pooled rate of endoleak detection for CTA. Event rates in the individual studies presented as squares, with 95% confidence interval (CIs) presented as extending lines. The pooled event rate with its 95% CI is depicted as a diamond. ES: Effect Estimate [9,10,11,19,23,26,28,29,39,40,41,42,43,44].
Jcm 11 03628 g005
Table
Table 1. Baseline study characteristics of included studies comparing CDUS with CTA.
Table 1. Baseline study characteristics of included studies comparing CDUS with CTA.
AuthorsCountryYear of PublicationStudy DesignPeriod of RecruitmentNumber of Participants Who Remained in SurveillanceCDUS Properties for Endoleak Detection (%)Study Quality NOS
SensitivitySpecificityAccuracyPPVNPV
Smith et al. [5]London, UK2021Comparative Retrospective study2007–2019303NRNRNRNRNR8
Iscan et al. [14]Turkey2021Comparative Retrospective study2018–20208463.6%100%95.2%100%94.8%8
Baptiste et al. [15]France2020Comparative Retrospective study2010–201553958%92%NR39%81%7
Baderkahn et al. [17]Sweden2020Comparative Retrospective study1998–201243988.8%99.4%NRNR97%7
Schaeffer et al. [18]USA2017Comparative Retrospective study2004–20148885%95%NR88%94%6
Arsicot et al. [16]France2014Comparative Retrospective study2010–20124886%85%NR71%94%6
Oikonomou et al. [21]Germany2012Comparative Retrospective study2009–20119075%95%NR85%91%5
Clevert et al. [19]Germany2011Comparative Retrospective StudyNR3540%90%NRNRNR5
Nagre et al. [20]USA2011Comparative Retrospective study1999–2009173NRNRNRNRNR5
Cantisani et al. [23]Italy2011Comparative Retrospective study2007–200910858%93%85%NR89%5
Schmieder et al. [24]USA2009Comparative Retrospective study1996–200723664%84%NR44%93%5
Bargellini et al. [22]Italy2009Comparative Retrospective study1998–200718463%%98%93%85%93.6%5
Giannoni et al. [26]Italy2007Comparative Retrospective studyNR30NRNRNRNRNR5
AbuRahma et al. [25]USA2006Comparative Retrospective studyNR3568%99%NR85%99%5
Sandford et al. [27]UK2006Comparative Retrospective studyNR24464%91%NR52%95%5
Henao et al. [29]USA2006Comparative Retrospective Study2004–200520NRNRNRNRNR5
Raman et al. [30]USA2003Comparative Retrospective study1996–200228143%96%NR54%94%5
Bendick et al. [28]USA2003Comparative Retrospective studyNR4053%NRNRNRNR5
McLafferti et al. [32]USA2002Comparative Retrospective study1997–199979100%99%99%88%100%5
Parent et al. [33]USA2002Comparative Retrospective study1996–200041NRNRNRNRNR5
Golzarian et al. [31]Belgium2002Comparative Retrospective study1996–19975577%90%NR85%85%5
Pages et al. [35]France2001Comparative Retrospective study1996–19994148%94%NR74%81%5
d’Audiffret et al. [34]France2001Comparative Retrospective study1995–20008996%94%NR89%98%5
Wolf et al. [37]USA2000Comparative Retrospective study1996–19997681%95%NR94%90%3
Zannetti et al. [38]Italy2000Comparative Retrospective study1997–199910366%100%82%100%71%3
Thompson et al. [36]UK1998Comparative Retrospective study199620NRNRNRNRNR3
Heilberg et al. [39]Germany1997Comparative Retrospective study1994–1996102NRNRNRNRNR3
NOS: adjusted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Studies could receive a score of minimum 3 to maximum 8 points, NR: non reported, CDUS: Color-Duplex Ultrasound, PPV: Positive Predictive value, NPV: Negative Predictive Value.
Table
Table 2. Baseline study characteristics of included studies comparing CEUS with CTA.
Table 2. Baseline study characteristics of included studies comparing CEUS with CTA.
AuthorsYear of PublicationCountryStudy DesignPeriod of RecruitmentNumber of Participants who Remained in SurveillanceCEUS Characteristics for Endoleak Detection (%)Study Quality NOS
SensitivitySpecificityAccuracyPPVNPV
Faccioli et al. [41]2018ItalyComparative Retrospective Study2011–201613797.1%100%98.0%100%92.1%8
David et al. [40]2016ItalyComparative Retrospective Study2009–201418197.6%100%NRNR99.3%7
Bredahl et al. [43]2016DenmarkComparative Retrospective Study2001–201427885.3%95%NRNRNR7
Abbas et al. [42]2014Manchester, UKComparative Retrospective Study2012–201323100%92%NR94%100%7
Motta et al. [44]2012ItalyComparative Retrospective study2008–20108892.0%100%NR100%97.2%5
Clevert et al. [19]2011GermanyComparative Retrospective StudyNR35100%100%NRNRNR5
Perini et al. [9]2011FranceComparative Retrospective Study2006–2010395NRNRNRNRNR5
Cantisani et al. [23]2011ItalyComparative Retrospective study2007–200910896%100%99%NR99%5
Bosh et al. [10]2010NetherlandComparative Retrospective Study2006–200883NRNRNRNRNR5
Pfister et al. [45]2009GermanyComparative Retrospective StudyNR3099%85%NR91%44%5
Iezzi et al. [11]2009ItalyComparative Retrospective StudyNR8497%82%89%NR97%5
Henao et al. [29]2006USAComparative Retrospective Study2004–200520NRNRNRNRNR5
Giannoni et al. [26]2003ItalyComparative Retrospective StudyNR2744%94%NRNRNR5
Bendick et al. [28]2003USAComparative Retrospective studyNR4093%NRNRNRNR5
Heilberg et al. [39]1997GermanyComparative Retrospective study1994–1996102NRNRNRNRNR3
NOS: adjusted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Studies could receive a score of minimum 3 to maximum 8 points, NR: non reported, CEUS: Contrast enhanced Ultrasound, PPV: Positive Predictive value, NPV: Negative Predictive Value.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Karaolanis, G.I.; Antonopoulos, C.N.; Georgakarakos, E.; Lianos, G.D.; Mitsis, M.; Glantzounis, G.K.; Giannoukas, A.; Kouvelos, G. Colour Duplex and/or Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Compared with Computed Tomography Angiography for Endoleak Detection after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 3628. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11133628

AMA Style

Karaolanis GI, Antonopoulos CN, Georgakarakos E, Lianos GD, Mitsis M, Glantzounis GK, Giannoukas A, Kouvelos G. Colour Duplex and/or Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Compared with Computed Tomography Angiography for Endoleak Detection after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(13):3628. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11133628

Chicago/Turabian Style

Karaolanis, Georgios I., Constantine N. Antonopoulos, Efstratios Georgakarakos, Georgios D. Lianos, Michail Mitsis, Georgios K. Glantzounis, Athanasios Giannoukas, and George Kouvelos. 2022. "Colour Duplex and/or Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Compared with Computed Tomography Angiography for Endoleak Detection after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 13: 3628. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11133628

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop