Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Endoleak Identification and Classification

NCT ID: NCT04615559

Last Updated: 2022-11-14

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

WITHDRAWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2020-12-31

Study Completion Date

2023-07-31

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Surgery for abdominal aortic pathology usually occurs in the setting of advanced cardiovascular disease. The repair can be relatively simple or complex with multiple steps including open repair, placing a stent with a catheter, and placing a complicated stent that allows for crossing vessels without occluding them. All these repairs require imaging follow up. The most commonly accepted tool for follow up is Computed Tomography (CT) scan which involves ionizing radiation and potentially nephrotoxic iodinated contrast. Recommendations for the time interval for follow up, as well the radiology imaging technique vary. Routine ultrasound with Doppler, CT, and MRI has all been employed utilizing various imaging protocols. Clinicians use non-contrast CT, arterial phase and delayed phase CT, ultrasound, and various combinations based on personal experience and patient pathology. Concerns over cost, potential nephrotoxicity of contrast agents and repeated radiation exposure has led to investigation of alternate imaging modalities such as contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). CEUS represents an improvement of ultrasound imaging but comparisons against CT report widely varying results, likely due to technical factors of CEUS and limitations of single-phase CTA. Contrast ultrasound has been used effectively to diagnose leaks in the aorta post repair and is without the radiation and potential nephrotoxicity of iodinated contrast. Of yet, no large prospective studies have compared CT and contrast US and no studies have looked at the more complicated staged or fenestrated repairs. This study proposes to perform a contrast ultrasound at the same time as a contrast CT using a standardized protocol. This protocol would include a non-contrast CT, angiographic CT, and a CT in a delayed phase in all patients as standard of care. We will compare the results of a contrast US with the various data derived from a three phase CT.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Introduction: Surgery for abdominal aortic pathology usually occurs in the setting of advanced cardiovascular disease. The repair can be relatively simple or complex with multiple steps including open repair, placing a stent with a catheter, and placing a complicated stent that allows for crossing vessels without occluding them. All these repairs require imaging follow up.

Rationale: The most commonly accepted tool for follow up is Computed Tomography (CT) scan which involves ionizing radiation and potentially nephrotoxic iodinated contrast. Routine ultrasound with Doppler, CT, and MRI has all been employed utilizing various imaging protocols. Concerns over cost, potential nephrotoxicity of contrast agents and repeated radiation exposure has led to investigation of alternate imaging modalities such as contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). CEUS also allows continuous (dynamic) or real-time monitoring of the aneurysm and endoleak throughout the study.

Objectives:

Aim 1: To determine the consistency/discrepancy of endoleak detection (positive/negative) for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) versus various phases of CTA versus delayed phase CTA.

Aim 2 (Exploratory): To explore the consistency/discrepancy of endoleak type (type 1-5) between CEUS and delayed phase CTA.

Aim 3 (Exploratory): To explore the consistency/discrepancy of endoleak source detected (positive/negative for each source) for type II endoleaks between CEUS and CTA.

Aim 4 (Exploratory): Re-assess Aims 1-3 for the follow-up scans. The goal for this aim is to examine whether the consistency/discrepancy patterns discovered in Aims 1-3 can be repeated at the follow-up scans.

Population: 40 patients who have undergone an EVAR or FEVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysms and are expected to have CTA as part of their standard of care will be enrolled in the study.

Methodology: Patients will be evaluated with research contrast ultrasound at one month post-op, six months post-op and at one year.

Data Analysis Plan: Binomial 95% confidence interval will be calculated for sensitivity and specificity. One- sided binomial test will be conducted to test whether the target sensitivity and specificity are superior to the null value, e.g. a minimal acceptable level of sensitivity and specificity. In detecting the rate of endoleak positive on CEUS or other phases of the CTA but negative on CTA in the delayed phase, we will compute Clopper Pearson Exact 95% confidence interval since such a rate could be small. To assess consistency of endoleak type (type 1-5) between CEUS and delayed phase CTA, Kappa coefficient will be used. In the situation with high agreement biased towards one endoleak type, or extremely unbalanced distribution of endoleak types, prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa coefficient (PABAK) (Byrt, Bishop, and Carlin 1993) will be used. The discrepancy of endoleak type between CEUS and delayed phase CTA will be reported as rate, for example percent of case rated as type 1 in CTA but type 2 in delayed phase, with Clopper Pearson Exact 95% confidence interval. SAS9.4 will be used for all statistical analyses.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

NA

Intervention Model

SINGLE_GROUP

Primary Study Purpose

DIAGNOSTIC

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

contrast enhanced ultrasound

CEUS will be performed at one month post-op, six months post-op and at one year.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Contrast enhanced ultrasound

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

CEUS involves the use of microbubble contrast agents and specialized imaging techniques to enhance the signal from blood, thus showing flow in macroscopic vessels as well as tissue perfusion information

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Contrast enhanced ultrasound

CEUS involves the use of microbubble contrast agents and specialized imaging techniques to enhance the signal from blood, thus showing flow in macroscopic vessels as well as tissue perfusion information

Intervention Type DIAGNOSTIC_TEST

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* 1\. Aged 18 or over 2. Able to give informed consent 3. Undergone an EVAR or FEVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysms 4. Expected to have CTA

Exclusion Criteria

* Unable to receive CTA (Contrast Allergy, Insufficient renal function for standard outpatient contrast study (eGFR \<30) Overactive thyroid gland)
* Unable to receive CEUS contrast, previous reaction to Ultrasound Contrast Agent (UCA)
* BMI \>50
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University of Southern California

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Edward Grant

Professor of Clinical Radiology

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Edward Grant

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

University of Southern California

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

USC Department of Radiology

Los Angeles, California, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

HS-20-00428

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Vector Velocity Imaging in AAA Patients
NCT05841524 ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING