Bertagna Giulia, Troisi Nicola, Zlatanovic Petar, Rocha-Neves Joao, Chisci Emiliano, Berchiolli Raffaella, Lepidi Sandro, D'Oria Mario
Vascular Surgery Unit, Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Clinic for Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia.
Vascular. 2025 Aug;33(4):924-932. doi: 10.1177/17085381241273221. Epub 2024 Aug 12.
ObjectivesThe aim of this cross-sectional survey was to gather attitudes and practices of physicians from different countries regarding the implementation of contrast-enhanced ULTRAsound (CEUS) for vascular diseases in clinical practice as well as in academic research.MethodsA web-based survey was developed in English, including 35 questions. Two-hundred sixty physicians were invited by email to fill in the survey anonymously on Google Forms using a dedicated link. The survey started on 25 February 2024 and was closed on 13 March 2024 (17 days). A reminder was sent after the first 10 days. In addition to descriptive statistics, sub-analyses of answers according to country of origin (Italy vs other States), years of experience (≤20 years vs > 20 years), and type of institution (Academic/University vs Non-Academic/Private) were also established a priori.ResultsA total of 121 practitioners from 20 countries completed our survey (response rate 121/260, 46%). Most responders were males (95/121, 78.5%). Most participants were vascular surgeons (118/121, 97.5%). CEUS was available in 87/121, 70.2% of the centers involved, even though a standardized protocol was present in 54/121, and 44% of surveyed institutions. Italian institutions presented greater CEUS availability (62/72, 86.1% vs 25/49, 51.0%; = .001) and higher presence of standardized protocols (38/72, 52.8% vs 16/49, 32.6%; = .022) than foreign institutions. The diagnostic tool was thought to be more useful for carotid artery stenosis in the postoperative phase, while for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in the preoperative phase. For diagnosis and/or preoperative management of carotid stenosis 53/121, 44% of physicians believed that CEUS should be performed only in selected cases, while for AAA 42/121, 35% of them believed that it could be useful only for scientific purposes. Similarly, 99/121, 82% of participants answered that CEUS was usually prescribed in 0%-20% of the cases during the preoperative diagnostic pathway of patients with peripheral arterial disease. No differences between country of origin, years of experience, and type of institution were found for the reported items. There was also 106/121, 88% of respondents agreed upon the need for better integration of CEUS in current guidelines and 114/121, 94% of them upon the need for further studies.ConclusionsThis ULTRA-VASC survey has demonstrated that CEUS is still rarely used in current practice for many vascular diseases despite the availability of this tool in most centers Future studies are needed, as well as enhanced guidance on the proper implementation of CEUS from guidelines.
目的
本横断面调查的目的是收集来自不同国家的医生在临床实践和学术研究中对将超声造影(CEUS)用于血管疾病的态度和做法。
方法
以英语开发了一项基于网络的调查,包含35个问题。通过电子邮件邀请260名医生使用专用链接在谷歌表单上匿名填写调查问卷。调查于2024年2月25日开始,2024年3月13日结束(共17天)。在最初10天后发送了提醒。除描述性统计外,还根据原籍国(意大利与其他国家)、经验年限(≤20年与>20年)和机构类型(学术/大学与非学术/私立)对答案进行了预先设定的子分析。
结果
来自20个国家的121名从业者完成了我们的调查(回复率为121/260,46%)。大多数回复者为男性(95/121,78.5%)。大多数参与者是血管外科医生(118/121,97.5%)。在参与调查的中心中,87/121(70.2%)的中心有CEUS设备,尽管54/121(44%)的被调查机构有标准化方案。意大利机构的CEUS设备可用性更高(62/72,86.1%对比25/49,51.0%;P = 0.001),标准化方案的存在比例也更高(38/72,52.8%对比16/49,32.6%;P = 0.022)。对于术后阶段的颈动脉狭窄,该诊断工具被认为更有用,而对于术前阶段的腹主动脉瘤(AAA)也是如此。对于颈动脉狭窄的诊断和/或术前管理,53/121(44%)的医生认为CEUS仅应在特定病例中进行,而对于AAA,42/121(35%)的医生认为它仅对科学目的有用。同样,99/121(82%)的参与者回答说,在周围动脉疾病患者的术前诊断过程中,CEUS通常在0%-20%的病例中被开具。在所报告的项目中,未发现原籍国、经验年限和机构类型之间存在差异。此外,106/121(88%)的受访者同意需要在当前指南中更好地整合CEUS,114/121(94%)的受访者同意需要进行进一步研究。
结论
这项ULTRA-VASC调查表明,尽管大多数中心都有CEUS工具,但在当前实践中,CEUS在许多血管疾病中仍很少使用。未来需要进行研究,并从指南中加强对CEUS正确实施的指导。