AC Search
Document Navigator

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm or Dissection-Interventional Planning and Follow-up

Variant: 1   Planning for pre-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
Aortography abdomen May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast and US aorta abdomen with duplex Doppler Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
US duplex Doppler aorta abdomen Usually Not Appropriate O
Radiography abdomen and pelvis Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢

Variant: 2   Follow-up for post-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
Aortography abdomen May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast and US aorta abdomen with duplex Doppler May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
US duplex Doppler aorta abdomen May Be Appropriate O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) ☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
Radiography abdomen and pelvis May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢

Panel Members
Christopher J. Francois, MDa; Erik P. Skulborstad, MD, MBAb; Sanjeeva P. Kalva, c; Baljendra S. Kapoor, MDd; Bill S. Majdalany, MDe; Ankur Chandra, MDf; Jeremy D. Collins, MDg; Khashayar Farsad, MD, PhDh; Marie D. Gerhard-Herman, MDi; Heather L. Gornik, MDj; A. Tuba Karagulle Kendi, MDk; Minhaj S. Khaja, MD, MBAl; Margaret H. Lee, MDm; Patrick D. Sutphin, MD, PhDn.
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Overview of Imaging Modalities
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Planning for pre-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
Variant 1: Planning for pre-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
A. Radiography
Variant 1: Planning for pre-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
B. CT and CTA
Variant 1: Planning for pre-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
C. Aortography
Variant 1: Planning for pre-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
D. MRA
Variant 1: Planning for pre-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
E. US
Variant 2: Follow-up for post-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
Variant 2: Follow-up for post-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
A. CT and CTA
Variant 2: Follow-up for post-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
B. Aortography
Variant 2: Follow-up for post-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
C. MRA
Variant 2: Follow-up for post-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
D. US
Variant 2: Follow-up for post-endovascular repair (EVAR) or open repair of AAA.
E. Radiography
Summary of Recommendations
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.
Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

☢

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”
References
1. Schmidt T, Muhlberger N, Chemelli-Steingruber IE, et al. Benefit, risks and cost-effectiveness of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm. [Review] [50 refs]. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed. 182(7):573-80, 2010 Jul.
2. Truijers M, Resch T, Van Den Berg JC, Blankensteijn JD, Lonn L. Endovascular aneurysm repair: state-of-art imaging techniques for preoperative planning and surveillance. [Review] [69 refs]. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 50(4):423-38, 2009 Aug.
3. Nelson PR, Kracjer Z, Kansal N, et al. A multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of totally percutaneous access versus open femoral exposure for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (the PEVAR trial). J Vasc Surg. 2014;59(5):1181-1193.
4. Oderich GS, Greenberg RK, Farber M, et al. Results of the United States multicenter prospective study evaluating the Zenith fenestrated endovascular graft for treatment of juxtarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(6):1420-1428 e1421-1425.
5. Tambyraja AL, Fishwick NG, Bown MJ, Nasim A, McCarthy MJ, Sayers RD. Fenestrated aortic endografts for juxtarenal aortic aneurysm: medium term outcomes. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;42(1):54-58.
6. Lee JT, Lee GK, Chandra V, Dalman RL. Comparison of fenestrated endografts and the snorkel/chimney technique. J Vasc Surg. 2014;60(4):849-856; discussion 856-847.
7. Manunga JM, Gloviczki P, Oderich GS, et al. Femoral artery calcification as a determinant of success for percutaneous access for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2013;58(5):1208-1212.
8. Brewster DC, Cronenwett JL, Hallett JW, Jr., Johnston KW, Krupski WC, Matsumura JS. Guidelines for the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Report of a subcommittee of the Joint Council of the American Association for Vascular Surgery and Society for Vascular Surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2003; 37(5):1106-1117.
9. Parodi JC, Palmaz JC, Barone HD. Transfemoral intraluminal graft implantation for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 1991; 5(6):491-499.
10. Greco G, Egorova NN, Gelijns AC, et al. Development of a novel scoring tool for the identification of large >/=5 cm abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Surg. 2010; 252(4):675-682.
11. Dillavou ED, Muluk SC, Makaroun MS. Improving aneurysm-related outcomes: nationwide benefits of endovascular repair. J Vasc Surg. 2006; 43(3):446-451; discussion 451-442.
12. Schermerhorn ML, O'Malley AJ, Jhaveri A, Cotterill P, Pomposelli F, Landon BE. Endovascular vs. open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the Medicare population. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(5):464-474.
13. Arko FR, Filis KA, Seidel SA, et al. How many patients with infrarenal aneurysms are candidates for endovascular repair? The Northern California experience. J Endovasc Ther. 2004; 11(1):33-40.
14. Ahanchi SS, Carroll M, Almaroof B, Panneton JM. Anatomic severity grading score predicts technical difficulty, early outcomes, and hospital resource utilization of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2011; 54(5):1266-1272.
15. De Bruin JL, Baas AF, Buth J, et al. Long-term outcome of open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(20):1881-1889.
16. Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Powell JT, Thompson SG, Epstein D, Sculpher MJ. Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(20):1863-1871.
17. Mestres G, Zarka ZA, Garcia-Madrid C, Riambau V. Early abdominal aortic endografts: a decade follow-up results. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 40(6):722-8, 2010 Dec.
18. Pitoulias GA, Schulte S, Donas KP, Horsch S. Secondary endovascular and conversion procedures for failed endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: can we still be optimistic? Vascular. 2009; 17(1):15-22.
19. AbuRahma AF, Campbell J, Stone PA, et al. The correlation of aortic neck length to early and late outcomes in endovascular aneurysm repair patients. J Vasc Surg. 2009; 50(4):738-748.
20. Sweet MP, Fillinger MF, Morrison TM, Abel D. The influence of gender and aortic aneurysm size on eligibility for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2011; 54(4):931-937.
21. Yeung JJ, Hernandez-Boussard TM, Song TK, Dalman RL, Lee JT. Preoperative thrombus volume predicts sac regression after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther. 2009; 16(3):380-388.
22. Iezzi R, Cotroneo AR. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: CTA evaluation of contraindications. Abdom Imaging. 2006; 31(6):722-731.
23. Timaran CH, Lipsitz EC, Veith FJ, et al. Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair with the Zenith endograft in patients with ectatic iliac arteries. Ann Vasc Surg. 2005; 19(2):161-166.
24. Endovascular aneurysm repair versus open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1): randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005; 365(9478):2179-2186.
25. Lovegrove RE, Javid M, Magee TR, Galland RB. A meta-analysis of 21,178 patients undergoing open or endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg. 2008; 95(6):677-684.
26. Schanzer A, Greenberg RK, Hevelone N, et al. Predictors of abdominal aortic aneurysm sac enlargement after endovascular repair. Circulation. 123(24):2848-55, 2011 Jun 21.Circulation. 123(24):2848-55, 2011 Jun 21.
27. Ronsivalle S, Faresin F, Franz F, Rettore C, Zanchetta M, Olivieri A. Aneurysm sac "thrombization" and stabilization in EVAR: a technique to reduce the risk of type II endoleak. J Endovasc Ther. 2010; 17(4):517-524.
28. Ilyas S, Shaida N, Thakor AS, Winterbottom A, Cousins C. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) follow-up imaging: the assessment and treatment of common postoperative complications. [Review]. Clin Radiol. 70(2):183-96, 2015 Feb.
29. Brewster DC, Jones JE, Chung TK, et al. Long-term outcomes after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: the first decade. Ann Surg. 2006; 244(3):426-438.
30. Bastos Goncalves F, Baderkhan H, Verhagen HJ, et al. Early sac shrinkage predicts a low risk of late complications after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Br J Surg. 2014;101(7):802-810.
31. Veith FJ, Baum RA, Ohki T, et al. Nature and significance of endoleaks and endotension: summary of opinions expressed at an international conference. J Vasc Surg. 2002; 35(5):1029-1035.
32. Geller SC. Imaging guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair with endovascular stent grafts. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2003; 14(9 Pt 2):S263-264.
33. Picel AC, Kansal N. Essentials of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair imaging: preprocedural assessment. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(4):W347-57, 2014 Oct.
34. Picel AC, Kansal N. Essentials of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair imaging: postprocedure surveillance and complications. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(4):W358-72, 2014 Oct.
35. Tse DM, Tapping CR, Patel R, et al. Surveillance after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. [Review]. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 37(4):875-88, 2014 Aug.
36. American College of Radiology. ACR–NASCI–SIR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Body Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=164+&releaseId=2.
37. Macari M, Chandarana H, Schmidt B, Lee J, Lamparello P, Babb J. Abdominal aortic aneurysm: can the arterial phase at CT evaluation after endovascular repair be eliminated to reduce radiation dose? Radiology. 2006; 241(3):908-914.
38. Hong C, Heiken JP, Sicard GA, Pilgram TK, Bae KT. Clinical significance of endoleak detected on follow-up CT after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. AJR. 2008; 191(3):808-813.
39. Iezzi R, Cotroneo AR, Filippone A, et al. Multidetector CT in abdominal aortic aneurysm treated with endovascular repair: are unenhanced and delayed phase enhanced images effective for endoleak detection? Radiology. 2006; 241(3):915-921.
40. Stavropoulos SW, Charagundla SR. Imaging techniques for detection and management of endoleaks after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. Radiology. 2007; 243(3):641-655.
41. Buffa V, Solazzo A, D&#39;Auria V, et al. Dual-source dual-energy CT: dose reduction after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Radiol Med (Torino). 119(12):934-41, 2014 Dec.
42. Stolzmann P, Frauenfelder T, Pfammatter T, et al. Endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: detection with dual-energy dual-source CT. Radiology. 2008; 249(2):682-691.
43. Stavropoulos SW, Clark TW, Carpenter JP, et al. Use of CT angiography to classify endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005; 16(5):663-667.
44. Huang SG, Woo K, Moos JM, et al. A prospective study of carbon dioxide digital subtraction versus standard contrast arteriography in the detection of endoleaks in endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs. Ann Vasc Surg. 27(1):38-44, 2013 Jan.
45. Sueyoshi E, Nagayama H, Sakamoto I, Uetani M. Carbon dioxide digital subtraction angiography as an option for detection of endoleaks in endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair procedure. J Vasc Surg. 61(2):298-303, 2015 Feb.
46. American College of Radiology. Manual on Contrast Media. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual.
47. Nguyen VL, Leiner T, Hellenthal FA, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysms with high thrombus signal intensity on magnetic resonance imaging are associated with high growth rate. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 48(6):676-84, 2014 Dec.
48. Hoffmann B, Bessman ES, Um P, Ding R, McCarthy ML. Successful sonographic visualisation of the abdominal aorta differs significantly among a diverse group of credentialed emergency department providers. Emerg Med J. 2011; 28(6):472-476.
49. Millen A, Canavati R, Harrison G, et al. Defining a role for contrast-enhanced ultrasound in endovascular aneurysm repair surveillance. J Vasc Surg. 58(1):18-23, 2013 Jul.
50. Bredahl K, Taudorf M, Long A, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound improves the accuracy of diameter measurement of the residual sac in EVAR patients. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 46(5):525-32, 2013 Nov.
51. AbuRahma AF, Welch CA, Mullins BB, Dyer B. Computed tomography versus color duplex ultrasound for surveillance of abdominal aortic stent-grafts. J Endovasc Ther. 2005; 12(5):568-573.
52. Bargellini I, Cioni R, Napoli V, et al. Ultrasonographic surveillance with selective CTA after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Endovasc Ther. 2009; 16(1):93-104.
53. Abbas A, Hansrani V, Sedgwick N, Ghosh J, McCollum CN. 3D contrast enhanced ultrasound for detecting endoleak following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 47(5):487-92, 2014 May.
54. Thurnher S, Cejna M. Imaging of aortic stent-grafts and endoleaks. Radiol Clin North Am. 2002;40(4):799-833.
55. Corriere MA, Islam A, Craven TE, Conlee TD, Hurie JB, Edwards MS. Influence of computed tomography angiography reconstruction software on anatomic measurements and endograft component selection for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 59(5):1224-31.e1-3, 2014 May.
56. Sobocinski J, Chenorhokian H, Maurel B, et al. The benefits of EVAR planning using a 3D workstation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013;46(4):418-423.
57. Tatli S, Lipton MJ, Davison BD, Skorstad RB, Yucel EK. From the RSNA refresher courses: MR imaging of aortic and peripheral vascular disease. Radiographics. 2003; 23 Spec No:S59-78.
58. Ludman CN, Yusuf SW, Whitaker SC, Gregson RH, Walker S, Hopkinson BR. Feasibility of using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography as the sole imaging modality prior to endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 19(5):524-30, 2000 May.
59. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Kondo H, et al. Preoperative planning for endovascular aortic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: feasibility of nonenhanced MR angiography versus contrast-enhanced CT angiography. Radiology. 267(3):948-55, 2013 Jun.
60. Shreibati JB, Baker LC, Hlatky MA, Mell MW. Impact of the Screening Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Very Efficiently (SAAAVE) Act on abdominal ultrasonography use among Medicare beneficiaries. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(19):1456-1462.
61. Garg T, Baker LC, Mell MW. Adherence to postoperative surveillance guidelines after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair among Medicare beneficiaries. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 61(1):23-7, 2015 Jan.J Vasc Surg. 61(1):23-7, 2015 Jan.
62. Gill HL, Ladowski S, Sudarshan M, et al. Predictive value of negative initial postoperative imaging after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 60(2):325-9, 2014 Aug.
63. Patel MS, Carpenter JP. The value of the initial post-EVAR computed tomography angiography scan in predicting future secondary procedures using the Powerlink stent graft. J Vasc Surg. 2010; 52(5):1135-1139.
64. Sternbergh WC, 3rd, Greenberg RK, Chuter TA, Tonnessen BH. Redefining postoperative surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair: recommendations based on 5-year follow-up in the US Zenith multicenter trial. J Vasc Surg. 2008; 48(2):278-284; discussion 284-275.
65. Farner MC, Carpenter JP, Baum RA, Fairman RM. Early changes in abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter after endovascular repair. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 14(2 Pt 1):205-10, 2003 Feb.
66. Cayne NS, Veith FJ, Lipsitz EC, et al. Variability of maximal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements on CT scan: significance and methods to minimize. J Vasc Surg. 2004; 39(4):811-815.
67. Bargellini I, Cioni R, Petruzzi P, et al. Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: analysis of aneurysm volumetric changes at mid-term follow-up. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2005; 28(4):426-433.
68. Demehri S, Signorelli J, Kumamaru KK, et al. Volumetric quantification of type II endoleaks: an indicator for aneurysm sac growth following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.[Erratum appears in Radiology. 2015 Oct;277(1):308 Note: Steinger, Michael L [corrected to Steigner, Michael L]; PMID: 26402504]. Radiology. 271(1):282-90, 2014 Apr.
69. Prinssen M, Verhoeven EL, Verhagen HJ, Blankensteijn JD. Decision-making in follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair based on diameter and volume measurements: a blinded comparison. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2003; 26(2):184-187.
70. Bley TA, Chase PJ, Reeder SB, et al. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: nonenhanced volumetric CT for follow-up. Radiology. 2009;253(1):253-262.
71. Bobadilla JL, Suwanabol PA, Reeder SB, Pozniak MA, Bley TA, Tefera G. Clinical implications of non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography for follow-up after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 27(8):1042-8, 2013 Nov.
72. Cani A, Cotta E, Recaldini C, et al. Volumetric analysis of the aneurysmal sac with computed tomography in the follow-up of abdominal aortic aneurysms after endovascular treatment. Radiol Med (Torino). 117(1):72-84, 2012 Feb.
73. Nambi P, Sengupta R, Krajcer Z, Muthupillai R, Strickman N, Cheong BY. Non-contrast computed tomography is comparable to contrast-enhanced computed tomography for aortic volume analysis after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011; 41(4):460-466.
74. Caldwell DP, Pulfer KA, Jaggi GR, Knuteson HL, Fine JP, Pozniak MA. Aortic aneurysm volume calculation: effect of operator experience. Abdom Imaging. 2005; 30(3):259-262.
75. Czermak BV, Fraedrich G, Schocke MF, et al. Serial CT volume measurements after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. J Endovasc Ther. 2001; 8(4):380-389.
76. Merkle EM, Klein S, Kramer SC, Wisianowsky C. MR angiographic findings in patients with aortic endoprostheses. AJR. 2002; 178(3):641-648.
77. Klemm T, Duda S, Machann J, et al. MR imaging in the presence of vascular stents: A systematic assessment of artifacts for various stent orientations, sequence types, and field strengths. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000; 12(4):606-615.
78. Ayuso JR, de Caralt TM, Pages M, et al. MRA is useful as a follow-up technique after endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms with nitinol endoprostheses. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004; 20(5):803-810.
79. Habets J, Zandvoort HJ, Reitsma JB, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging is more sensitive than computed tomography angiography for the detection of endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review. [Review]. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 45(4):340-50, 2013 Apr.
80. Pitton MB, Schweitzer H, Herber S, et al. MRI versus helical CT for endoleak detection after endovascular aneurysm repair. AJR. 2005; 185(5):1275-1281.
81. Lookstein RA, Goldman J, Pukin L, Marin ML. Time-resolved magnetic resonance angiography as a noninvasive method to characterize endoleaks: initial results compared with conventional angiography. J Vasc Surg. 2004; 39(1):27-33.
82. Ersoy H, Jacobs P, Kent CK, Prince MR. Blood pool MR angiography of aortic stent-graft endoleak. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 182(5):1181-6, 2004 May.
83. Ichihashi S, Marugami N, Tanaka T, et al. Preliminary experience with superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging and comparison with contrast-enhanced computed tomography in endoleak detection after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 58(1):66-72, 2013 Jul.
84. Resta EC, Secchi F, Giardino A, et al. Non-contrast MR imaging for detecting endoleak after abdominal endovascular aortic repair. Int J Cardiovasc Imaging. 29(1):229-35, 2013 Jan.
85. Ashoke R, Brown LC, Rodway A, et al. Color duplex ultrasonography is insensitive for the detection of endoleak after aortic endografting: a systematic review. J Endovasc Ther. 2005; 12(3):297-305.
86. Sun Z. Diagnostic value of color duplex ultrasonography in the follow-up of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006; 17(5):759-764.
87. Gargiulo M, Gallitto E, Serra C, et al. Could four-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasound replace computed tomography angiography during follow up of fenestrated endografts? Results of a preliminary experience. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 48(5):536-42, 2014 Nov.
88. Gurtler VM, Sommer WH, Meimarakis G, et al. A comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging and multislice computed tomography in detecting and classifying endoleaks in the follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 58(2):340-5, 2013 Aug.
89. Perini P, Sediri I, Midulla M, Delsart P, Gautier C, Haulon S. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound vs. CT angiography in fenestrated EVAR surveillance: a single-center comparison. J Endovasc Ther. 19(5):648-55, 2012 Oct.
90. Gray C, Goodman P, Herron CC, et al. Use of colour duplex ultrasound as a first line surveillance tool following EVAR is associated with a reduction in cost without compromising accuracy. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 44(2):145-50, 2012 Aug.
91. AbuRahma AF. Fate of endoleaks detected by CT angiography and missed by color duplex ultrasound in endovascular grafts for abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Endovasc Ther. 2006; 13(4):490-495.
92. Collins JT, Boros MJ, Combs K. Ultrasound surveillance of endovascular aneurysm repair: a safe modality versus computed tomography. Ann Vasc Surg. 2007; 21(6):671-675.
93. Manning BJ, O'Neill SM, Haider SN, Colgan MP, Madhavan P, Moore DJ. Duplex ultrasound in aneurysm surveillance following endovascular aneurysm repair: a comparison with computed tomography aortography. J Vasc Surg. 2009; 49(1):60-65.
94. Parent FN, Meier GH, Godziachvili V, et al. The incidence and natural history of type I and II endoleak: a 5-year follow-up assessment with color duplex ultrasound scan. J Vasc Surg. 2002; 35(3):474-481.
95. Arko FR, Filis KA, Siedel SA, et al. Intrasac flow velocities predict sealing of type II endoleaks after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2003; 37(1):8-15.
96. Karthikesalingam A, Al-Jundi W, Jackson D, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of duplex ultrasonography, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography or computed tomography for surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair. Br J Surg. 2012;99(11):1514-1523.
97. Causey MW, Jayaraj A, Leotta DF, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasonography measurements after endovascular aneurysm repair. Ann Vasc Surg. 27(2):146-53, 2013 Feb.
98. Chaikof EL, Brewster DC, Dalman RL, et al. SVS practice guidelines for the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: executive summary. J Vasc Surg. 2009;50(4):880-896.
99. Murphy M, Hodgson R, Harris PL, McWilliams RG, Hartley DE, Lawrence-Brown MM. Plain radiographic surveillance of abdominal aortic stent-grafts: the Liverpool/Perth protocol. J Endovasc Ther. 2003; 10(5):911-912.
100. Smith T, Quencer KB. Best Practice Guidelines: Imaging Surveillance After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. [Review]. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 214(5):1165-1174, 2020 05.
101. Gallitto E, Faggioli G, Gargiulo M, et al. Planning, Execution, and Follow-up for Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Using a Highly Restrictive Iodinated Contrast Protocol in Patients with Severe Renal Disease. Annals of Vascular Surgery. 47:205-211, 2018 Feb.
102. Reginelli A, Capasso R, Ciccone V, et al. Usefulness of triphasic CT aortic angiography in acute and surveillance: Our experience in the assessment of acute aortic dissection and endoleak. International Journal Of Surgery. 33 Suppl 1:S76-84, 2016 Sep.
103. Saratzis A, Dattani N, Brown A, et al. Multi-Centre Study on Cardiovascular Risk Management on Patients Undergoing AAA Surveillance. European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery. 54(1):116-122, 2017 Jul.
104. Dong H, Raterman B, White RD, et al. MR Elastography of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Relationship to Aneurysm Events. Radiology. 304(3):721-729, 2022 09.
105. Lee R, Bellamkonda K, Jones A, et al. Flow Mediated Dilatation and Progression of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms. European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery. 53(6):820-829, 2017 Jun.
106. Schinkel AF, Kaspar M, Staub D. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: clinical applications in patients with atherosclerosis. [Review]. The International Journal of Cardiovascular Imaging. 32(1):35-48, 2016 Jan.
107. Schaeffer JS, Shakhnovich I, Sieck KN, Kallies KJ, Davis CA, Cogbill TH. Duplex Ultrasound Surveillance After Uncomplicated Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair. Vascular & Endovascular Surgery. 51(5):295-300, 2017 Jul.
108. Chisci E, Harris L, Guidotti A, et al. Endovascular Aortic Repair Follow up Protocol Based on Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Is Safe and Effective. European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery. 56(1):40-47, 2018 07.
109. Johnsen L, Hisdal J, Jonung T, Braaten A, Pedersen G. Three-dimensional ultrasound volume and conventional ultrasound diameter changes are equally good markers of endoleak in follow-up after endovascular aneurysm repair. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 75(3):1030-1037.e1, 2022 03.
110. Nayeemuddin M, Pherwani AD, Asquith JR. Imaging and management of complications of open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. [Review]. Clin Radiol. 67(8):802-14, 2012 Aug.
111. Pratesi C, Esposito D, Apostolou D, et al. Guidelines on the management of abdominal aortic aneurysms: updates from the Italian Society of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery (SICVE). Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery. 63(3):328-352, 2022 Jun.
112. Postoperative imaging of the aorta.
113. Serizawa F, Ohara M, Kotegawa T, Watanabe S, Shimizu T, Akamatsu D. The Incidence of Para-Anastomotic Aneurysm After Open Repair Surgery for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Through Routine Annual Computed Tomography Imaging. European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery. 62(2):187-192, 2021 08.
114. Charbonneau P, Hongku K, Herman CR, et al. Long-term survival after endovascular and open repair in patients with anatomy outside instructions for use criteria for endovascular aneurysm repair. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 70(6):1823-1830, 2019 12.
115. Baba T, Ohki T, Kanaoka Y, et al. Clinical Outcomes of Total Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Aortic Aneurysms Involving the Proximal Anastomotic Aneurysm following Initial Open Repair for Infrarenal Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Annals of Vascular Surgery. 49:123-133, 2018 May.
116. Gifford JN, Cheong HW, Teoh WC. Late-onset type I endoleak characterized by contrast enhanced ultrasound after endovascular repair of aortic aneurysm. Journal of Clinical Ultrasound. 46(6):424-429, 2018 Jul.
117. Rubenthaler J, Reiser M, Cantisani V, Rjosk-Dendorfer D, Clevert DA. The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) using a high-end ultrasound system in the characterization of endoleaks after endovascular aortic repair (EVAR). Clinical Hemorheology & Microcirculation. 66(4):283-292, 2017.
118. Shukla K, Messner M, Albuquerque F, Larson R, Newton D, Levy M. Safety of Utilizing Ultrasound as the Sole Modality of Follow-Up after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. Annals of Vascular Surgery. 92:172-177, 2023 May.
119. Jean-Baptiste E, Feugier P, Cruzel C, et al. Computed Tomography-Aortography Versus Color-Duplex Ultrasound for Surveillance of Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Prospective Multicenter Diagnostic-Accuracy Study (the ESSEA Trial). Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging. 13(6):e009886, 2020 06.
120. Faccioli N, Foti G, Casagranda G, Santi E, D'Onofrio M. CEUS versus CT Angiography in the follow-up of abdominal aortic endoprostheses: diagnostic accuracy and activity-based cost analysis. Radiologia Medica. 123(12):904-909, 2018 Dec.
121. Gabriel M, Tomczak J, Snoch-Ziolkiewicz M, et al. Superb Micro-vascular Imaging (SMI): a Doppler ultrasound technique with potential to identify, classify, and follow up endoleaks in patients after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR). Abdominal Radiology. 43(12):3479-3486, 2018 12.
122. Kawada H, Goshima S, Sakurai K, et al. Utility of Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Angiography for Aneurysm Follow-Up and Detection of Endoleaks after Endovascular Aortic Repair. Korean Journal of Radiology. 22(4):513-524, 2021 04.
123. Zierler RE. Duplex ultrasound follow-up after fenestrated and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR and BEVAR). [Review]. Seminars in Vascular Surgery. 33(3-4):60-64, 2020 Dec.
124. Rouet L, Dufour C, Collet Billon A, Bredahl K. CT and 3D-ultrasound registration for spatial comparison of post-EVAR abdominal aortic aneurysm measurements: A cross-sectional study. Computerized Medical Imaging & Graphics. 73:49-59, 2019 04.
125. Berczeli M, Chinnadurai P, Chang SM, Lumsden AB. Time-Resolved, Dynamic Computed Tomography Angiography for Characterization of Aortic Endoleaks and Treatment Guidance via 2D-3D Fusion-Imaging. Journal of Visualized Experiments. (178), 2021 12 09.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.