Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30771104›Full record

SynthesisJournal of ultrasound2019

Is contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) superior to computed tomography angiography (CTA) in detection of endoleaks in post-EVAR patients? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Amer Harky, Ewa Zywicka, Giovanni Santoro, Lucas Jullian, Mihika Joshi, Sameh Dimitri

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of ultrasound, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Utility of four-dimensional computed tomography scan following endovascular aneurysm repair.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Advanced ultrasound techniques in arterial diseases.The international journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2022
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Recent Update of Endovascular Type 2 Endoleak Management.Interventional radiology (Higashimatsuyama-shi (Japan) · 2020
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Amer HarkyDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK. aaharky@gmail.com.
Ewa ZywickaDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK.
Giovanni SantoroDepartment of General Surgery, Warrington and Halton NHS Foundation Trust, Warrington, WA5 1QG, UK.
Lucas JullianDepartment of Cardiac Surgery, Barts Heart Centre, London, EC1A 7BE, UK.
Mihika JoshiDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK.
Sameh DimitriDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester, CH2 1UL, UK.
University of Liverpool · GBBritish Heart Foundation · GBCountess of Chester Hospital · GBWarrington and Halton Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) compared to computed tomography angiography (CTA) for the detection of endoleaks within endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) surveillance at time of follow up.

methodsA comprehensive literature search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Ovid) to identify all articles assessing diagnostic specificity and accuracy with comparative modality (CEUS vs CTA) for endoleaks in adult patients at time of follow-up following EVAR. Databases where evaluated and assessed to October 2018.

resultsA total of 1773 patients were analysed from across 18 included studies in the quantitative analysis of the parameters of interest. There was no significant difference in detection rate of endoleak type I with detection rate 4.3% for both groups OR 1.09, 95% CI [0.78, 1.53], p = 0.62; type II endoleak detection rate was 22% in the CEUS group vs 23% in the CTA group OR 1.16, 95% CI [0.75-1.79], p = 0.50; while type III detection rate was 1.8% in CEUS group vs 2% in CTA group OR 0.85, 95% CI [0.43, 1.68], p = 0.64. However, the sensitivity rate for endoleak detection was higher in CEUS (p = 0.001) while no difference in specificity rate was noted (p = 0.28). There was higher rate of missed endoleaks in CTA groups (n = 12 vs n = 20).

conclusionEvidences from this study suggest that contrast-enhanced ultrasound scan post-EVAR can be utilised as safe and effective method in screening for endoleaks during post-EVAR surveillance without exposing the patient for additional risk of radiation and contrast. CEUS conveys no inferiority to CTA in detecting endoleaks.

Indexed as

Computed Tomography AngiographyContrast MediaEndovascular ProceduresUltrasonographyAortic Aneurysm, AbdominalControlled Clinical Trials as TopicHumansPostoperative HemorrhageContrast MediaAngiographyComputerized tomographyContrast studyEVARUltrasound

Identifiers

PMID30771104
PMCPMC6430298
OpenAlexW2914804471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.