International cross-sectional survey on attitudes and practices regarding use of contrast-enhanced ULTRAsound in VASCular surgery: The I-ULTRA-VASC study

• Tipo: Artigo em Revista Científica Internacional
• Data: 2024

Autores

Bertagna, G (Autor) Outra; Troisi, N (Autor) Outra; Zlatanovic, P (Autor) Outra; Rocha-Neves, J (Autor) FMUP; Chisci, E (Autor) Outra; Berchiolli, R (Autor) Outra; Lepidi, S (Autor) Outra; D'Oria, M (Autor) Outra

Revista

Título: Vascular

ISSN: 1708-5381

Editora: SAGE

Indexação

ISI Web of Knowledge - 0 Citações

Scopus - 0 Citações

Outras Informações

ID Authenticus: P-013-13Q

DOI: 10.1177/17085381241273221

Abstract (EN): Objectives: The 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. Methods: A 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(th) February 2024 and was closed on 13(th) 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. Results: A 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%; p = .001) and higher presence of standardized protocols (38/72, 52.8% vs 16/49, 32.6%; p = .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. Conclusions: This 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.

Idioma: Inglês

Tipo (Avaliação Docente): Científica

Nº de páginas: 9