Comparative Effectiveness of Intravascular Ultrasound versus Angiography in Abdominal and Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Tomonari Shimoda,Mario D'Oria,Toshiki Kuno,Patrick Heindel,Sandro Lepidi,Mohamad A. Hussain,Hisato Takagi,Eric A. Secemsky
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2024.05.017
IF: 3.133
2024-05-20
The American Journal of Cardiology
Abstract:The effectiveness of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) with angiography compared with angiography-guidance alone in the treatment of 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 (TEVAR) and abdominal (EVAR) endovascular aortic repair. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases was conducted in March 2024 adhering to the PRISMA 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 4219 patients (n=2655 IVUS and n=1564 non-IVUS) from 9 observational studies were included. The IVUS group exhibited a reduction in contrast agent volume (weighted mean difference (WMD) [95% CI] = -34.65 mL [-54.73, -14.57]) and fluoroscopy time (WMD [95% CI] = -6.13 min [-11.10, -1.15]), with no difference in procedural time. The perioperative type I and III endoleak occurrence were similar (RR [95% CI] = 2.36 [0.55-10.11], RR [95% CI] = 0.72 [0.09-5.77], respectively). Reintervention and mortality during follow-up were comparable (HR [95% CI] = 0.80 [0.33-1.97], HR [95% CI] = 0.75 [0.47-1.18], respectively). All the included studies had low risks of bias. In conclusion, this meta-analysis provides evidence that IVUS enables the safe deployment of TEVAR/EVAR with reduced contrast agent less radiation exposure.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems