Physiological Appearance of Hybrid FDG-Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Imaging Following Uncomplicated Endovascular Aneurysm Sealing Using the Nellix Endoprosthesis

Purpose: To investigate the physiological uptake of hybrid fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) before and after an uncomplicated endovascular aneurysm sealing (EVAS) procedure as a possible tool to diagnose EVAS graft infection and differentiate from postimplantation syndrome. Materials and Methods: Eight consecutive male patients (median age 78 years) scheduled for elective EVAS were included in the prospective study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02349100). FDG-PET/CT scans were performed in all patients before the procedure and 6 weeks after EVAS. The abdominal aorta was analyzed in 4 regions: suprarenal, infrarenal neck, aneurysm sac, and iliac. The following parameters were obtained for each region: standard uptake value (SUV), tissue to background ratio (TBR), and visual examination of FDG uptake to ascertain its distribution. Demographic data were obtained from medical files and scored based on reporting standards. Results: Visual examination showed no difference between pre- and postprocedure FDG uptake, which was homogenous. In the suprarenal region no significant pre- and postprocedure differences were observed for the SUV and TBR parameters. The infrarenal neck region showed a significant decrease in the SUV and no significant decrease in the TBR. The aneurysm sac and iliac regions both showed a significant decrease in SUV and TBR between the pre- and postprocedure scans. Conclusion: Physiological FDG uptake after EVAS was stable or decreased with regard to the preprocedure measurements. Future research is needed to assess the applicability and cutoff values of FDG-PET/CT scanning to detect endograft infection after EVAS

Evaluation of Electrocardiogram-Gated Computed Tomography Angiography to Quantify Changes in Geometry and Dynamic Behavior during the Cardiac Cycle of the Nellix Endovascular Sealing System

Background. The Nellix endovascular sealing system (EVAS) was a unique concept with regard to its sealing concept that failed, related to high migration rates. We investigated the changes in aortoiliac morphology during the cardiac cycle before and after EVAS using electrocardiography (ECG)-gated CT. Methods. Eight patients scheduled for EVAS were prospectively enrolled. ECG-gated CT scans were made pre- and postoperatively. Measurements were performed in the mid-systolic and mid-diastolic phases. Endpoints were changes in infrarenal aortoiliac morphology postoperatively compared to preoperatively and their changes in the cardiac cycle. Results. Both pre- and postoperatively, there were no changes during the cardiac cycle. EVAS caused an increase in neck diameter and surface in both phases (). EVAS increased the luminal AAA volume (), with a decrease in thrombus volume () in both phases and an increase in total volume () in the systolic phase. During follow-up, one patient presented with >5 mm migration. There were no differences in the movements of this patient compared to the remaining patients. Conclusion. The cardiac cycle had a very limited effect on the aortoiliac dynamics before and after EVAS and, therefore, there is probably not a role for ECG-gated CT in enhanced surveillance programs. EVAS itself has a significant impact on anatomy, particularly the neck diameter, length, and volumes of the AAA

Validation of pre-procedural aortic aneurysm volume calculations to estimate procedural fill volume of endobags in endovascular aortic sealing

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aortic sealing (EVAS) with a sac anchoring endoprosthesis excludes abdominal aortic aneurysms based on polymer filling of endobags. Primary objective was to assess the reliability of pre-procedural computed tomography (CT) scans based calculations of required endobag volume in relation to intraoperative volume of the endobags. METHODS: Forty elective EVAS patients were included. Pre-procedural estimations of endobag volume were based on CT segmentations of aortic flow lumen volume, including both automated and manually-adjusted segmentations, performed by two experienced users. Additionally, changes in maximum AAA diameter, thrombus volume and total AAA volume were calculated from pre- and post-procedural CT scans. RESULTS: Automatically determined volumes were comparable to manually-adjusted calculations (75.3 vs. 75.7 mL) and inter-observer agreement regarding pre-EVAS calculations of prefill volume appeared almost perfect with an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.98 (95% CI: 0.96-0.99). The mean pressure of the endobags was 185 mmHg. Manually-adjusted pre-procedural volume calculations underestimated procedural volume of the endobags (-11.3±9.9 mL). Differences between pre-EVAS and procedural volume measurements were independent from endobag pressure (r=-0.06, P=0.72), prepocedural thrombus volume (r=-0.303, P=0.057) and changes in total AAA volume (r=0.02, P=0.91). A significant association was determined between differences in pre-EVAS and endobag volume versus changes in thrombus volume pre- and post-procedural (r=0.39, P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this validation study, pre-procedural volume measurements underestimate the actual fill volume of the endobags. It should be advised to perform a prefill of the endobags during the EVAS procedure