Fusion Imaging Guidance Does Not Affect Radiation Exposure During Endovascular Procedures for Lower Extremity...

Radiation exposure for vascular interventionalists is still a concern. The aim of this study was to assess the value of advanced imaging guidance on radiation exposure and iodinated contrast volume during endovascular treatment of lower extremity arterial disease (LEAD).

It was a prospective, randomized, monocentric, pilot, single-operator study, conducted from June 2018 to October 2019. Consecutive patients requiring a preoperative computed tomography angiography (CTA) for a symptomatic LEAD and scheduled for an iliac and/or femoropopliteal endovascular repair in a hybrid room were included. Patients were randomly assigned to the use of fusion imaging guidance (Vessel Navigator^®, Philips) or not. The primary endpoint was the dose area product (DAP, Gy.cm²). Secondary endpoints were DAP for fluoroscopy, DAP for fluorography, Air Kerma, fluoroscopy time, volume of contrast, and number of digital subtraction angiography (DSA). Data were expressed in median [Q1-Q3].

In all, 64 of the 77 patients enrolled (34 in fusion group, 30 in control group, 82% men, 65.8 years [61-71]) were included. Groups were similar in terms of comorbidities, BMI (26 kg/cm² [24-28]), but lesion location were not equally distributed (p=0.004). There was no significant difference between the groups regarding DAP (31.6 Gy.cm² [23.4; 46.9] for fusion group vs 25.6[16.9; 34.0] Gy.cm²; p=0.07), Air Kerma (160 mGy [96;3365] vs 115 mGy [76;201]; p=0.12, fluoroscopy time (560 seconds [326;960] vs 454 seconds [228;1022]; p=0.44), contrast volume (60 ml [42;80] vs 50 ml [40;66]; p=0.10), or operative time (68 minutes [55;90] vs 46 minutes [30;80]; p=0.06). The median number of DSA was 14 [10-18] in the fusion group versus 11 [6-18]; p=0.049.

Fusion imaging guidance does not affect radiation exposure and contrast volume during endovascular revascularisation of iliac and femoropopliteal occlusive disease in a hybrid room environment.