Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of Superb Micro-vascular Imaging (SMI) as an alternative to Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) and Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA) for endoleak detection and classification in patients followed up after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR).
Materials And Methods: From May 2015 to January 2017, 30 patients underwent post-EVAR follow-up with Color Doppler Ultrasound (CDUS), CEUS, SMI, and CTA examinations. Aneurysmal sac diameter and graft patency were evaluated; endoleaks were identified and classified. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy values were calculated for each of the four diagnostic methods of endoleak detection. A percentage of agreement and Cohen's Kappa coefficient were calculated for comparison of methods in terms of endoleak identification.
Results: CTA revealed fifteen endoleaks (50%): three type Ia, nine type II, and three type III. The sensitivity of CDUS, CEUS, and SMI relative to CTA was 27%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. Specificity was 93%, 93%, and 93%, respectively. Accuracy was 60%, 97%, and 97%, respectively. There were no differences between SMI and CEUS in terms of sensitivity, specificity, or accuracy (100%, 93%, and 97%). We do not observe statistically significant differences between CTA, CEUS, and SMI concerning endoleak identification ability. The weakest method in endoleak identification was CDUS.
Conclusions: The analysis showed that SMI is effective, repeatable, and comparable with the CEUS modality in identification endoleaks after EVAR; it may be considered as a potential tool to monitor patients after EVAR implantation, especially those with renal insufficiency or with an allergy to any contrast media.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6208813 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1633-x | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!