Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33411747›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

Quantitative analysis of dynamic computed tomography angiography for the detection of endoleaks after abdominal aorta aneurysm endovascular repair: A feasibility study.

Georg Apfaltrer, Francesco Lavra, U Joseph Schoepf, Marco Scarabello, Ricardo Yamada, Marly van Assen, Akos Varga-Szemes, Brian E Jacobs, Maximilian J Bauer, William T Greenberg and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

13 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Georg ApfaltrerDivision of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.
Francesco LavraDivision of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.
U Joseph SchoepfDivision of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-6164-5641
Marco ScarabelloDivision of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.
Ricardo YamadaDivision of Vascular Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.
Marly van AssenDivision of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.
Akos Varga-SzemesDivision of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.
Brian E JacobsDivision of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.
Maximilian J BauerDivision of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8179-9250
William T GreenbergDivision of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-0959-2474
Marcelo GuimaraesDivision of Vascular Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.
Luca SabaDepartment of Radiology, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria (A.O.U.), Cagliari, Italy.
Carlo N De CeccoDivision of Cardiovascular Imaging, Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.
Medical University of South Carolina · USAzienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Cagliari · ITUniversity Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the feasibility of quantitative analysis of dynamic computed tomography angiography (dCTA) for the detection of endoleaks in patients who underwent endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (EVAR). MATERIAL AND

methodsTwenty patients scheduled for contrast-enhanced CT angiography (CTA) of the abdominal aorta post-EVAR were prospectively enrolled. All patients received a standard triphasic CTA protocol, followed by an additional dCTA. The dCTA acquisition enabled reconstruction of color-coded maps depicting blood perfusion and a dCTA dataset of the aneurysm sac. Observers assessed the dCTA and dynamic CT perfusion (dCTP) images for the detection of endoleaks, establishing diagnostic confidence based on a modified 5-point Likert scale. An index was calculated for the ratio between the endoleak and aneurysm sac using blood flow for dCTP and Hounsfield units (HU) for dCTA. The Wilcoxon test compared the endoleak index and the diagnostic confidence of the observers.

resultsIn total, 19 patients (18 males, median age 74 years [70.5-75.7]) were included for analysis. Nine endoleaks were detected in 7 patients using triphasic CTA as the reference standard. There was complete agreement for endoleak detection between the two techniques on a per-patient basis. Both dCTA and dCTP identified an additional endoleak in one patient. The diagnostic confidence using dCTP for detection of endoleaks was not significantly superior to dCTA (5.0 [5-5] vs. 4.5 [4-5], respectively; p = 0.11); however, dCTP demonstrated superior diagnostic confidence for endoleak exclusion compared to dCTA (1.0 [1-1] vs 1.5 [1.5-1.5], respectively; p <0.01). Moreover, the dCTP endoleak index was significantly higher than the dCTA index (18.5 [10.8-20.5] vs. 3.5 [5-2.7], respectively; p = 0.02).

conclusionsQuantitative analysis of dCTP imaging can aid in the detection of endoleaks and demonstrates a higher endoleak detection rate than triphasic CTA, as well as a strong correlation with visual assessment of dCTA images.

Indexed as

Aorta, AbdominalAortic Aneurysm, AbdominalComputed Tomography AngiographyAgedEndoleakEndovascular ProceduresFemaleHumansMale

Identifiers

PMID33411747
PMCPMC7790279
OpenAlexW3118751311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.