Affiliations: Department of Anesthesiology, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany | Department for Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital Munich-Grosshadern, Germany
Note: [] Shared first-authorship.
Note: [] Shared first-authorship.
Note: [] Corresponding author: D.A. Clevert, MD, Professor of Radiology, Department for Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Hospital Munich, Marchioninistrasse 15, 81377 Munich, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare compression elastography and contrast enhanced ultrasound in the follow-up after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this retrospective study a cohort of 33 patients with both CEUS and elastography follow-up examinations after EVAR were included. The examinations were done with a Siemens S 2000 with curved array 4 MHz multi-frequency transducer. RESULTS: Regarding our inclusion and exclusion criteria we obtained 33 patients. CEUS was used as the preferred examination in determining the presence of an endoleak. The true positive rate for the detection of Endoleaks with compression elastography was 42.4% (14/33), the false positive rate was 12.1% (4/33), the true negative rate was 15.2% (5/33) and the false negative rate was 30.3% (10/33). The sensitivity of compression elastography was therefore 58.3% and the specifity was 55.6%. Kappa coefficient was 0.115. CONCLUSION: Compression elastography does not seem to have any additional advantages in the detection and classification of endoleaks in comparison to CEUS.
