Comparative Effectiveness of Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography in Abdominal and Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Am J Cardiol

Richard A and Susan F Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address:

Published: July 2024

The effectiveness of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with angiography compared with angiography guidance alone in treating aortic conditions, such as dissections, aneurysms, and blunt traumatic injuries, remains unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the current literature for IVUS use during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) and abdominal endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was conducted in March 2024 adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies comparing outcomes of TEVAR/EVAR with and without IVUS were identified. The outcomes of interest included contrast volume, fluoroscopy and procedural time, perioperative endoleak, and reinterventions and all-cause mortality during follow-up. Data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were extracted. Pooled analysis was performed using a random-effect model. Subgroup analysis was performed stratified by the condition being treated. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A total of 4,219 patients (n = 2,655 IVUS and n = 1,564 non-IVUS) from 9 observational studies were included. The IVUS group exhibited a reduction in contrast agent volume (weighted mean difference -34.65 mL, 95% CI -54.73 to -14.57) and fluoroscopy time (weighted mean difference -6.13 minutes, 95% CI -11.10 to -1.15), with no difference in procedural time. The perioperative type I and III endoleak occurrences were similar (risk ratio 2.36, 95% CI 0.55 to 10.11; risk ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.77, respectively). Reintervention and mortality during follow-up were comparable (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.97; hazard ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.18, respectively). All the included studies had small risks of bias. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides evidence that IVUS enables the safe deployment of TEVAR/EVAR with reduced contrast agent and radiation exposure.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11214883PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.05.017DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

endovascular aortic
12
aortic repair
12
effectiveness intravascular
8
intravascular ultrasound
8
thoracic endovascular
8
systematic review
8
review meta-analysis
8
procedural time
8
time perioperative
8
mortality follow-up
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!