Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Utility of Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Angiography for Aneurysm Follow-Up and Detection of Endoleaks after Endovascular Aortic Repair

  • Hiroshi Kawada (Department of Radiology, Gifu University Hospital) ;
  • Satoshi Goshima (Department of Radiology, Gifu University Hospital) ;
  • Kota Sakurai (Department of Radiology, Chuno Kosei Hospital) ;
  • Yoshifumi Noda (Department of Radiology, Gifu University Hospital) ;
  • Kimihiro Kajita (Department of Radiology Services, Gifu University Hospital) ;
  • Yukichi Tanahashi (Department of Radiology, Gifu University Hospital) ;
  • Nobuyuki Kawai (Department of Radiology, Gifu University Hospital) ;
  • Narihiro Ishida (Department of General and Cardiothoracic Surgery, Gifu University Hospital) ;
  • Katsuya Shimabukuro (Department of General and Cardiothoracic Surgery, Gifu University Hospital) ;
  • Kiyoshi Doi (Department of General and Cardiothoracic Surgery, Gifu University Hospital) ;
  • Masayuki Matsuo (Department of Radiology, Gifu University Hospital)
  • Received : 2019.12.31
  • Accepted : 2020.06.22
  • Published : 2021.04.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To assess the noncontrast two-dimensional single-shot balanced turbo-field-echo magnetic resonance angiography (b-TFE MRA) features of the abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) status following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and evaluate to detect endoleaks (ELs). Materials and Methods: We examined four aortic stent-grafts in a phantom study to assess the degree of metallic artifacts. We enrolled 46 EVAR-treated patients with AAA and/or common iliac artery aneurysm who underwent both computed tomography angiography (CTA) and b-TFE MRA after EVAR. Vascular measurements on CTA and b-TFE MRA were compared, and signal intensity ratios (SIRs) of the aneurysmal sac were correlated with the size changes in the AAA after EVAR (AAA prognoses). Furthermore, we examined six feasible b-TFE MRA features for the assessment of ELs. Results: There were robust intermodality (r = 0.92-0.99) correlations and interobserver (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.97-0.99) agreement. No significant differences were noted between SIRs and aneurysm prognoses. Moreover, "mottled high-intensity" and "creeping high-intensity with the low-band rim" were recognized as significant imaging findings suspicious for the presence of ELs (p < 0.001), whereas "no signal black spot" and "layered high-intensity area" were determined as significant for the absence of ELs (p < 0.03). Based on the two positive features, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the detection of ELs were 77.3%, 91.7%, and 84.8%, respectively. Furthermore, the k values (0.40-0.88) displayed moderate-to-almost perfect agreement. Conclusion: Noncontrast MRA could be a promising imaging modality for ascertaining patient follow-up after EVAR.

Keywords

References

  1. Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Kwong GP, Powell JT, Thompson SG; EVAR trial participants. 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  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16979-1
  2. United Kingdom EVAR Trial Investigators, Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Powell JT, Thompson SG, Epstein D, et al. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1863-1871 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0909305
  3. De Bruin JL, Baas AF, Buth J, Prinssen M, Verhoeven EL, Cuypers PW, et al. Long-term outcome of open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1881-1889  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0909499
  4. Albuquerque FC Jr, Tonnessen BH, Noll RE Jr, Cires G, Kim JK, Sternbergh WC 3rd. Paradigm shifts in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm: trends in 721 patients between 1996 and 2008. J Vasc Surg 2010;51:1348-1353  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2010.01.078
  5. Ilyas S, Shaida N, Thakor AS, Winterbottom A, Cousins C. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) follow-up imaging: the assessment and treatment of common postoperative complications. Clin Radiol 2015;70:183-196  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2014.09.010
  6. Picel AC, Kansal N. Essentials of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair imaging: postprocedure surveillance and complications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203:W358-W372  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.11736
  7. Fransen GA, Vallabhaneni SR Sr, van Marrewijk CJ, Laheij RJ, Harris PL, Buth J, et al. Rupture of infra-renal aortic aneurysm after endovascular repair: a series from EUROSTAR registry. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2003;26:487-493  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1078-5884(03)00350-2
  8. Chaikof EL, Brewster DC, Dalman RL, Makaroun MS, Illig KA, Sicard GA, et al. SVS practice guidelines for the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: executive summary. J Vasc Surg 2009;50:880-896  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvs.2009.07.001
  9. Walker TG, Kalva SP, Yeddula K, Wicky S, Kundu S, Drescher P, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: written by the standards of practice committee for the society of interventional radiology and endorsed by the cardiovascular and interventional radiological society of europe and the canadian interventional radiology association. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010;21:1632-1655  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2010.07.008
  10. Moll FL, Powell JT, Fraedrich G, Verzini F, Haulon S, Waltham M, et al. Management of abdominal aortic aneurysms clinical practice guidelines of the European society for vascular surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011;41 Suppl 1:S1-S58  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2010.09.011
  11. Stavropoulos SW, Charagundla SR. Imaging techniques for detection and management of endoleaks after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Radiology 2007;243:641-655  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2433051649
  12. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Kondo H, Kawada H, Kojima T, Sakurai K, et al. Preoperative planning for endovascular aortic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: feasibility of nonenhanced MR angiography versus contrast-enhanced CT angiography. Radiology 2013;267:948-955  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13121557
  13. Salehi Ravesh M, Langguth P, Pfarr JA, Schupp J, Trentmann J, Koktzoglou I, et al. Non-contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for visualization and quantification of endovascular aortic prosthesis, their endoleaks and aneurysm sacs at 1.5T. Magn Reson Imaging 2019;60:164-172  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2019.05.012
  14. Bae KT. Peak contrast enhancement in CT and MR angiography: when does it occur and why? Pharmacokinetic study in a porcine model. Radiology 2003;227:809-816  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2273020102
  15. Kanematsu M, Goshima S, Miyoshi T, Kondo H, Watanabe H, Noda Y, et al. Whole-body CT angiography with low tube voltage and low-concentration contrast material to reduce radiation dose and iodine load. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:W106-W116  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10720
  16. Tanahashi Y, Goshima S, Kondo H, Noda Y, Sakurai K, Kawada H, et al. Additional value of venous phase added to aortic CT angiography in patients with aortic aneurysm. Clin Imaging 2017;44:51-56  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.04.003
  17. Patel A, Edwards R, Chandramohan S. Surveillance of patients post-endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR). A web-based survey of practice in the UK. Clin Radiol 2013;68:580-587  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2012.11.019
  18. Tse DM, Tapping CR, Patel R, Morgan R, Bratby MJ, Anthony S, et al. Surveillance after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 2014;37:875-888  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-014-0916-z
  19. Ayuso JR, de Caralt TM, Pages M, Riambau V, Ayuso C, Sanchez M, et al. MRA is useful as a follow-up technique after endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms with nitinol endoprostheses. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:803-810  https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20170
  20. Pitton MB, Schweitzer H, Herber S, Schmiedt W, Neufang A, Kalden P, et al. MRI versus helical CT for endoleak detection after endovascular aneurysm repair. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;185:1275-1281  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.0729
  21. van der Laan MJ, Bartels LW, Viergever MA, Blankensteijn JD. Computed tomography versus magnetic resonance imaging of endoleaks after EVAR. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2006;32:361-365  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2006.02.011
  22. Cowper SE, Robin HS, Steinberg SM, Su LD, Gupta S, LeBoit PE. Scleromyxoedema-like cutaneous diseases in renal-dialysis patients. Lancet 2000;356:1000-1001  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02694-5
  23. Kuo PH, Kanal E, Abu-Alfa AK, Cowper SE. Gadolinium-based MR contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Radiology 2007;242:647-649  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2423061640
  24. Hagiwara S, Saima S, Negishi K, Takeda R, Miyauchi N, Akiyama Y, et al. High incidence of renal failure in patients with aortic aneurysms. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007;22:1361-1368  https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gfl779
  25. Miyazaki M, Isoda H. Non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the abdomen. Eur J Radiol 2011;80:9-23  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.093
  26. Engellau L, Larsson EM, Albrechtsson U, Jonung T, Ribbe E, Thorne J, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging and MR angiography of endoluminally treated abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 1998;15:212-219  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1078-5884(98)80178-0
  27. Pitton MB, Schmenger RP, Neufang A, Konerding MA, Duber C, Thelen M. Endovascular aneurysm repair: magnetic resonance monitoring of histological organization processes in the excluded aneurysm. Circulation 2002;105:1995-1999  https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000014972.94443.EF
  28. Herborn CU, Watkins DM, Runge VM, Gendron JM, Montgomery ML, Naul LG. Renal arteries: comparison of steady-state free precession MR angiography and contrast-enhanced MR angiography. Radiology 2006;239:263-268  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2383050058
  29. Haulon S, Lions C, McFadden EP, Koussa M, Gaxotte V, Halna P, et al. Prospective evaluation of magnetic resonance imaging after endovascular treatment of infrarenal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2001;22:62-69  https://doi.org/10.1053/ejvs.2001.1405
  30. Habets J, Zandvoort HJ, Reitsma JB, Bartels LW, Moll FL, Leiner T, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging is more sensitive than computed tomography angiography for the detection of endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2013;45:340-350  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2012.12.014
  31. Wollmann CG, Thudt K, Kaiser B, Salomonowitz E, Mayr H, Globits S. Safe performance of magnetic resonance of the heart in patients with magnetic resonance conditional pacemaker systems: the safety issue of the ESTIMATE study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2014;16:30 
  32. Kaasalainen T, Pakarinen S, Kivisto S, Holmstrom M, Hanninen H, Peltonen J, et al. MRI with cardiac pacing devices - safety in clinical practice. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:1387-1395 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.04.022