Advertisement

Fusion Imaging Reduces Radiation and Contrast Medium Exposure During Endovascular Revascularization of Iliac Steno-Occlusive Disease

  • E. StahlbergEmail author
  • M. Sieren
  • S. Anton
  • F. Jacob
  • M. Planert
  • J. Barkhausen
  • J. P. Goltz
Technical Note Arterial Interventions
  • 10 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Arterial Interventions

Abstract

Introduction

To evaluate feasibility, safety and efficacy of fusion imaging in order to guide endovascular revascularization of iliac steno-occlusive disease.

Materials and Methods

Retrospectively, we identified twenty-six patients (20 male, mean age 63 ± 8y; Rutherford II-V) who underwent revascularization of a chronic total occlusion (n = 6; 23%) or severe stenosis (n = 20; 77%) of the common and/or external iliac artery. Median lesion length was 33 mm (IQR 20–60). In one group of patients (NEW; n = 11), fusion imaging with 2-D/3-D registration was used to guide revascularization. No baseline digital subtraction angiography (DSA) had been acquired in these patients. In another group of patients (OLD; n = 15), no fusion imaging had been utilized and at least one DSA run had been performed to guide the procedure. In both groups, final DSA of the treated lesions was performed. Number of DSA runs, radiation and contrast medium exposure, technical success (residual stenosis < 30%) and complications were analyzed.

Results

Median DSA runs needed in OLD for guidance were n = 2 (IQR 2–3) and in NEW n = 0 (IQR 0–0; p = 0.001). Compared to OLD, median dose area product (DAP) was reduced by 17,118 mGy*cm2 (IQR 10,407–23,614; p = 0.016) if fusion imaging guidance had been used (NEW). Based on the median DAP of the final angiogram in NEW, median DAP reduction was 6007 mGy*cm2 (IQR 5012–16,105; p = 0.1). Median total contrast medium volume injected in NEW was 45 ml (IQR 30–90) and in OLD 120 ml (IQR 100–140; p = 0.001). Technical success was 100% for both groups. In 1/27 patients (3.7%) a minor complication (embolism) occurred.

Conclusion

Fusion imaging proved to be feasible as well as safe and significantly reduces radiation and contrast medium exposure during endovascular revascularization of iliac steno-occlusive disease.

Keywords

Iliac artery Fusion imaging Endovascular therapy Computed tomography angiography Magnetic resonance angiography 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Written, informed consent was not applicable, as this was a retrospective study involving no human subjects. Local ethic review committee approval was granted (18-216A).

Consent for Publication

For this type of study, consent for publication is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Maurel B, Hertault A, Sobocinski J, et al. Techniques to reduce radiation and contrast volume during EVAR. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2014;55:123–31.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hertault A, Maurel B, Sobocinski J, et al. Impact of hybrid rooms with image fusion on radiation exposure during endovascular aortic repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;48:382–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hertault A, Rhee R, Antoniou GA, et al. Radiation dose reduction during EVAR: results from a prospective multicentre study (The REVAR Study). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2018;56:426–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kobeiter H, Nahum J, Becquemin JP. Zero-contrast thoracic endovascular aortic repair using image fusion. Circulation. 2011;124:e280–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kuhelj D, Zdesar U, Jevtic V, et al. Risk of deterministic effects during endovascular aortic stent graft implantation. Br J Radiol. 2010;83:958–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Weerakkody RA, Walsh SR, Cousins C, Goldstone KE, Tang TY, Gaunt ME. Radiation exposure during endovascular aneurysm repair. Br J Surg. 2008;95:699–702.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schwab SJ, Hlatky MA, Pieper KS, et al. Contrast nephrotoxicity: a randomized controlled trial of a nonionic and an ionic radiographic contrast agent. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:149–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rudnick MR, Goldfarb S, Wexler L, et al. Nephrotoxicity of ionic and nonionic contrast media in 1196 patients: a randomized trial. The Iohexol Cooperative Study. Kidney Int. 1995;47:254–61.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andreucci M, Solomon R, Tasanarong A. Side effects of radiographic contrast media: pathogenesis, risk factors, and prevention. Biomed Res Int. 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/741018.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abi-Jaoudeh N, Kobeiter H, Xu S, Wood BJ. Image fusion during vascular and nonvascular image-guided procedures. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2013;16:168–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dijkstra ML, Eagleton MJ, Greenberg RK, Mastracci T, Hernandez A. Intraoperative C-arm cone-beam computed tomography in fenestrated/branched aortic endografting. J Vasc Surg. 2011;53:583–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sailer AM, de Haan MW, de Graaf R, et al. Fusion guidance in endovascular peripheral artery interventions: a feasibility study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38:314–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ierardi AM, Duka E, Radaelli A, Rivolta N, Piffaretti G, Carrafiello G. Fusion of CT angiography or MR angiography with unenhanced CBCT and fluoroscopy guidance in endovascular treatments of aorto-iliac steno-occlusion: technical note on a preliminary experience. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2016;39:111–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goudeketting SR, Heinen SG, van den Heuvel DA, et al. The use of 3D image fusion for percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and stenting of iliac artery obstructions: validation of the technique and systematic review of literature. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2018;59:26–36.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bargellini I, Turini F, Bozzi E, et al. Image fusion of preprocedural CTA with real-time fluoroscopy to guide proper hepatic artery catheterization during transarterial chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma: a feasibility study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2013;36:526–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sailer AM, de Haan MW, de Graaf R, et al. Fusion guidance in endovascular peripheral artery interventions: a feasibility study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2015;38:314–21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marx MV. The radiation dose in interventional radiology study: knowledge brings responsibility. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003;14:947–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kocinaj D, Cioppa A, Ambrosini G, et al. Radiation dose exposure during cardiac and peripheral arteries catheterisation. Int J Cardiol. 2006;113:283–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rahimi SA, Coyle BW, Vogel TR, Haser PB, Graham AM. Acute radiation syndrome after endovascular AAA repair. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2011;45:178–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parfrey PS, Griffiths SM, Barrett BJ, et al. Contrast material-induced renal failure in patients with diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency, or both. A prospective controlled study. N Engl J Med. 1989;320:143–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stangenberg L, Shuja F, Carelsen B, Elenbaas T, Wyers MC, Schermerhorn ML. A novel tool for three-dimensional roadmapping reduces radiation exposure and contrast agent dose in complex endovascular interventions. J Vasc Surg. 2015;62:448–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lalys F, Favre K, Villena A, Durrmann V, Colleaux M, Lucas A, et al. A hybrid disease. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2018;13:997–1007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stansfield T, Parker R, Masson N, Lewis D. The endovascular preprocedural run through and brief: a simple intervention to reduce radiation dose and contrast load in endovascular aneurysm repair. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2016;50:241–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Nuclear MedicineUniversity Hospital Schleswig Holstein - Campus LübeckLübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations