Imaging Fusion Guidance for Endovascular Aorto-Iliac Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Yiren Lai, Li Tang, Xinghua Liu et al.
✦ AI-curated · Sources linked
In 30 seconds
This systematic review and meta-analysis compared imaging fusion (IF) guidance with conventional imaging for endovascular aorto-iliac procedures. The review included 13 articles involving 1498 patients (732 IF vs 766 Control). Pooled analyses found shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times, lower contrast medium use, and reduced dose-area product and radiation doses with IF. No significant differences were observed in the other assessed outcomes. The authors noted heterogeneity and potential bias and advised selecting imaging strategies according to clinician experience and patient-specific factors.
Key findings
- The evidence synthesis included 13 articles and 1498 patients (732 IF vs 766 Control).
- Pooled analyses found shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times with IF guidance.
- IF guidance was associated with lower contrast medium use, dose-area product, and radiation doses.
- No significant differences were observed in the remaining assessed outcomes.
Why it matters
Reducing contrast use and radiation exposure, alongside shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times, may be relevant to procedural efficiency and patient exposure. However, the review did not find significant differences in the other assessed outcomes, and its authors highlight heterogeneity and potential bias. These findings support considering both the evidence and individual procedural context when evaluating imaging approaches.
What to keep in mind
The authors identify heterogeneity and potential bias across the included evidence; the pooled findings therefore warrant cautious interpretation.