Prospective nonrandomized study to evaluate cone beam computed tomography for technical assessment of standard and complex endovascular aortic repair

Emanuel R. Tenorio, Gustavo S. Oderich, Giuliano A. Sandri, Pinar Ozbek, Jussi M. Kärkkäinen, Terri Vrtiska, Thanila A. Macedo, Peter Gloviczki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Scopus citations


Objective: The objective of this study was to analyze the utility of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) for technical assessment of standard and complex endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Methods: Data of consecutive patients who underwent standard or complex EVAR in 2016 and 2017 at our institution were entered into a prospective database and analyzed retrospectively. There were 154 patients (126 male; mean age, 74 ± 8 years) enrolled in a prospective study between 2016 and 2017. A total of 170 aortic procedures were investigated, including 85 fenestrated-branched EVARs (F-BEVARs), 42 abdominal and thoracic EVARs, 32 EVARs with iliac branch devices, and 11 aorta-related interventions. Technical assessment was done using CBCT with and without contrast enhancement, digital subtraction angiography (DSA), and computed tomography angiography (CTA). Patients with stage 3B or stage 4 chronic kidney disease had CBCT without contrast enhancement. Radiation exposure (mean dose-area product), effective dose (ED), and amount of iodine contrast agent were analyzed. End points were presence of any endoleak, positive findings warranting possible intervention (stent kink or compression, type I or type III endoleak, dissection, thrombus), and need for secondary intervention. Results: Radiation exposure and amount of iodine contrast agent were significantly higher (P <.05) for F-BEVAR compared with other aortic procedures (174±101 Gy∙cm2 vs 1135±113 Gy∙cm2 and 144±60 mL vs 122±49 mL). ED averaged 74±36 mSv for the aortic procedure, 18 ± 18 mSv for fluoroscopy, 7 ± 7 mSv for DSA acquisition, 15±7 mSv for CBCT, and 34±17 mSv for CTA imaging (P <.001). Endoleak detection was significantly higher (P <.001) with CBCT (53%) compared with DSA (14%) and CTA (46%). CBCT identified 52 positive findings in 43 patients (28%), higher for F-BEVAR compared with other aortic procedures (35% vs 16%; P =.01). Positive findings included stent compression or kink in 29 patients (17%), type I or type III endoleak in 16 patients (10%), and arterial dissection or thrombus in 7 patients (5%). Of these, 28 patients (18%) had positive findings that prompted an intraoperative (17%) or delayed intervention (1%). Another 15 patients (10%) with minor positive findings were observed with no clinical consequence. DSA alone would not have detected positive findings in 34 of 43 patients (79%), including 21 patients (49%) who needed secondary interventions. CTA diagnosed two (1%) additional endoleaks requiring intervention (one type IC, one type IIIC) that were not diagnosed by CBCT. Replacing DSA and CTA by CBCT would have resulted in 53% ± 13% reduction in amount of iodine contrast agent and 55% ± 12% reduction in ED (P <.05). Conclusions: CBCT reliably detected positive findings prompting immediate revisions in nearly one of five patients, with the highest rates among F-BEVAR patients. Detection of any endoleak was higher with CBCT compared with DSA or CTA, but most endoleaks were observed. DSA alone failed to detect positive findings warranting revisions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of vascular surgery
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019



  • Complex endovascular repair
  • Cone beam computed tomography
  • Fenestrated and branched endovascular repair
  • Technical problems

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this