Follow-up compliance after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in Medicare beneficiaries

Stent-graft surface movement after endovascular aneurysm repair: baseline parameters for prediction, and association with migration and stent-graft-related endoleaks

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of baseline parameters on the occurrence of stent-graft surface movement after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and to investigate its association with migration and stent-graft-related endoleaks (srEL).

METHODS

In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, three-dimensional surface models of the stent-graft, delimited by landmarks using custom-built software, were derived from the pre-discharge and last follow-up computed tomography angiography (CTA). Stent-graft surface movement in the proximal anchoring zone between these examinations was considered significant at a threshold of 9 mm. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine baseline variables associated with the occurrence of stent-graft surface movement. The association between migration and srEL with stent-graft surface movement was tested with the chi-square and the Fisher exact test, respectively.

RESULTS

Stent-graft surface movement was observed in 54 (28.9%) of 187 patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that age ([HR] 1.05; p = 0.017), proximal neck diameter ([HR] 5.07; p < 0.001), infrarenal aortic neck angulation ([HR] 1.02, p = 0.002), and proximal neck length ([HR] 0.62, p < 0.001) were significantly associated with the occurrence of stent-graft surface movement. Migration and srEL occurred in 17 (31.5%) and 5 (9.3%) patients, with and 11 (8.3%) and 2 (1.5%) without stent-graft surface movement (p < 0.001, p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Age, neck diameter, infrarenal neck angulation, and proximal neck length were significantly associated with the occurrence of stent-graft surface movement. Apart from possible use of adjunctive sealing systems, concerned patients may benefit from regular CTA surveillance, enabling timely diagnosis of subtle changes of stent-graft position.

KEY POINTS

• Stent-graft surface movement, demonstrating subtle, three-dimensional changes in stent-graft position in the proximal anchoring zone, can be derived from CTA examinations. • Age, proximal neck diameter, and infrarenal neck angulation were significantly associated with an increased incidence of stent-graft surface movement. Stent-graft surface movement is significantly more frequent in patients with stent-graft migration and stent-graft-related endoleaks. • Consideration of risk factors for stent-graft surface movement may help to identify patients who might benefit from regular CTA surveillance and timely diagnosis of subtle changes of stent-graft position, enabling re-interventions to prevent migration and srEL.

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and/or colour duplex ultrasound for surveillance after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is less invasive than open surgery, but may be associated with important complications. Patients receiving EVAR require long-term surveillance to detect abnormalities and direct treatments. Computed tomography angiography (CTA) has been the most common imaging modality adopted for EVAR surveillance, but it is associated with repeated radiation exposure and the risk of contrast-related nephropathy. Colour duplex ultrasound (CDU) and, more recently, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEU) have been suggested as possible, safer, alternatives to CTA.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of imaging strategies, using either CDU or CEU alone or in conjunction with plain radiography, compared with CTA for EVAR surveillance.

DATA SOURCES

Major electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, Scopus' Articles-in-Press, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database from 1996 onwards. We also searched for relevant ongoing studies and conference proceedings. The final searches were undertaken in September 2016.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and cohort studies of patients with AAAs who were receiving surveillance using CTA, CDU and CEU with or without plain radiography. Three reviewers were involved in the study selection, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment. We developed a Markov model based on five surveillance strategies: (1) annual CTA; (2) annual CDU; (3) annual CEU; (4) CDU together with CTA at 1 year, followed by CDU on an annual basis; and (5) CEU together with CTA at 1 year, followed by CEU on an annual basis. All of these strategies also considered plain radiography on an annual basis.

RESULTS

We identified two non-randomised comparative studies and 25 cohort studies of interventions, and nine systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy. Overall, the proportion of patients who required reintervention ranged from 1.1% (mean follow-up of 24 months) to 23.8% (mean follow-up of 32 months). Reintervention was mainly required for patients with thrombosis and types I-III endoleaks. All-cause mortality ranged from 2.7% (mean follow-up of 24 months) to 42% (mean follow-up of 54.8 months). Aneurysm-related mortality occurred in < 1% of the participants. Strategies based on early and mid-term CTA and/or CDU and long-term CDU surveillance were broadly comparable with those based on a combination of CTA and CDU throughout the follow-up period in terms of clinical complications, reinterventions and mortality. The economic evaluation showed that a CDU-based strategy generated lower expected costs and higher quality-adjusted life-year (QALYs) than a CTA-based strategy and has a 63% probability of being cost-effective at a £30,000 willingness-to-pay-per-QALY threshold. A CEU-based strategy generated more QALYs, but at higher costs, and became cost-effective only for high-risk patient groups.

LIMITATIONS

Most studies were rated as being at a high or moderate risk of bias. No studies compared CDU with CEU. Substantial clinical heterogeneity precluded a formal synthesis of results. The economic model was hindered by a lack of suitable data.

CONCLUSIONS

Current surveillance practice is very heterogeneous. CDU may be a safe and cost-effective alternative to CTA, with CTA being reserved for abnormal/inconclusive CDU cases.

FUTURE WORK

Research is needed to validate the safety of modified, more-targeted surveillance protocols based on the use of CDU and CEU. The role of radiography for surveillance after EVAR requires clarification.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016036475.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Predicting risk of rupture and rupture-preventing reinterventions following endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Background

Clinical and imaging surveillance practices following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) vary considerably and compliance with recommended lifelong surveillance is poor. The aim of this study was to develop a dynamic prognostic model to enable stratification of patients at risk of future secondary aortic rupture or the need for intervention to prevent rupture (rupture‐preventing reintervention) to enable the development of personalized surveillance intervals.

Methods

Baseline data and repeat measurements of postoperative aneurysm sac diameter from the EVAR‐1 and EVAR‐2 trials were used to develop the model, with external validation in a cohort from a single‐centre vascular database. Longitudinal mixed‐effects models were fitted to trajectories of sac diameter, and model‐predicted sac diameter and rate of growth were used in prognostic Cox proportional hazards models.

Results

Some 785 patients from the EVAR trials were included, of whom 155 (19·7 per cent) experienced at least one rupture or required a rupture‐preventing reintervention during follow‐up. An increased risk was associated with preoperative AAA size, rate of sac growth and the number of previously detected complications. A prognostic model using predicted sac growth alone had good discrimination at 2 years (C‐index 0·68), 3 years (C‐index 0·72) and 5 years (C‐index 0·75) after operation and had excellent external validation (C‐index 0·76–0·79). More than 5 years after operation, growth rates above 1 mm/year had a sensitivity of over 80 per cent and specificity over 50 per cent in identifying events occurring within 2 years.

Conclusion

Secondary sac growth is an important predictor of rupture or rupture‐preventing reintervention to enable the development of personalized surveillance intervals. A dynamic prognostic model has the potential to tailor surveillance by identifying a large proportion of patients who may require less intensive follow‐up.

Potential to tailor surveillance

Patient satisfaction and chronic illness are predictors of postendovascular aneurysm repair surveillance compliance

OBJECTIVE

Although lifelong surveillance is recommended by the Society for Vascular Surgery for patients undergoing endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) reported that compliance with long-term follow-up has been poor. We sought to identify factors that predict compliance with EVAR surveillance through analysis of patient variables and post-EVAR questionnaire results.

METHODS

We analyzed 28 patient variables gathered from our computerized registry, patient charts, and phone questionnaires of patients who underwent EVAR between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014. These factors included patient demographics, education, postoperative complications, satisfaction with vascular surgery care, transportation mode, distance to our medical center, and living situation. Compliance was defined as a patient who underwent the most recent recommended follow-up surveillance study within the prescribed timeframe. Post-EVAR surveillance protocol consisted of office evaluation and duplex ultrasound examination performed in our accredited noninvasive vascular laboratory at 1 week, 6 months, then annually. Computed tomography angiography was obtained only if duplex ultrasound examination suggested endoleak, sac enlargement of more than 5 mm, or a failing limb.

RESULTS

Of 144 patients who underwent EVAR during this time period, 89 patients (62%) were compliant with the most recent recommended follow-up study. One hundred two patients completed the questionnaire or their families did if patients died or were incapacitated. Of those, 80 were compliant with follow-up and 22 were not. Based on the questionnaires of these 102 patients, estimated compliance at 3 years after EVAR was 69.6 ± 6.0% based on Kaplan-Meier analysis. In the compliant vs noncompliant groups, the estimated 3-year survival rate was 93.2 ± 3.4% vs 52.4 ± 12.7%, respectively (P < .001), and the estimated 5-year survival rate was 83.1 ± 6.4% vs 34.4 ± 13.4%, respectively (P < .001), respectively. However, none of the mortalities observed in the noncompliant group were aneurysm related. Adverse neurologic events after EVAR demonstrated a trend predicting noncompliance after 5 years based on multivariate Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 2.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-6.90; P = .062). Patient dissatisfaction with their vascular surgeon and hospital care predicted noncompliance with recommended postoperative surveillance (HR, 5.0; 95% CI, 1.52-16.7; P = .008). College education or higher was associated with compliance (HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.06-1.23; P = .092). No other variables, including postoperative complications or distance from the hospital, predicted follow-up noncompliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient satisfaction with their vascular surgeon and hospital experience predicted compliance with post-EVAR surveillance regardless of postoperative complications. Noncompliant patients had decreased survival, but mortality and surveillance noncompliance were likely due to disabling chronic disease.

A comparison of reintervention rates after endovascular aneurysm repair between the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, Medicare claims, and chart review

OBJECTIVE

The accurate measurement of reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is critical during postoperative surveillance. The purpose of this study was to compare reintervention rates after EVAR from three different data sources: the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) alone, VQI linked to Medicare claims (VQI-Medicare), and a "gold standard" of clinical chart review supplemented with telephone interviews.

METHODS

We reviewed the medical records of 729 patients who underwent EVAR at our institution between 2003 and 2013. We excluded patients without follow-up reported to the VQI (n = 68 [9%]) or without Medicare claims information (n = 114 [16%]). All patients in the final analytic cohort (n = 547) had follow-up information available from all three data sources (VQI alone, VQI linked to Medicare, and chart review). We then compared reintervention rates between the three data sources. Our primary end points were the agreement between the three data sources and the Kaplan-Meier estimated rate of reintervention at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after EVAR. For gold standard assessment, we supplemented chart review with telephone interview as necessary to assess reintervention.

RESULTS

VQI data alone identified 12 reintervention events in the first year after EVAR. Chart review confirmed all 12 events and identified 18 additional events not captured by the VQI. VQI-Medicare data successfully identified all 30 of these events within the first year. VQI-Medicare also documented four reinterventions in this time period that did not occur on the basis of patient interview (4/547 [0.7%]). The agreement between chart review and VQI-Medicare data at 1 year was excellent (κ = 0.93). At 3 years, there were 81 (18%) reinterventions detected by VQI-Medicare and 70 (16%) detected by chart review for a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 96%, and κ of 0.80. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated similar reintervention rates after 3 years between VQI-Medicare and chart review (log-rank, P = .59).

CONCLUSIONS

Chart review after EVAR demonstrated a 6% 1-year and 16% 3-year reintervention rate, and almost all (92%) of these events were accurately captured using VQI-Medicare data. Linking VQI data with Medicare claims allows an accurate assessment of reintervention rates after EVAR without labor-intensive physician chart review.

Editor's Choice - The Implications of Non-compliance to Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Surveillance: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND

Increasingly, reports show that compliance rates with endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) surveillance are often suboptimal. The aim of this study was to determine the safety implications of non-compliance with surveillance.

METHODS

The study was carried out according to the Preferred Items for Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An electronic search was undertaken by two independent authors using Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases from 1990 to July 2017. Only studies that analysed infrarenal EVAR and had a definition of non-compliance described as weeks or months without imaging surveillance were analysed. Meta-analysis was carried out using the random-effects model and restricted maximum likelihood estimation.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles (40,730 patients) were eligible for systematic review; of these, seven studies (14,311 patients) were appropriate for comparative meta-analyses of mortality rates. Three studies (8316 patients) were eligible for the comparative meta-analyses of re-intervention rates after EVAR and four studies (12,995 patients) eligible for meta-analysis for abdominal aortic aneurysm related mortality (ARM). The estimated average non-compliance rate was 42.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 28-56%). Although there is some evidence that non-compliant patients have better survival rates, there was no statistically significant difference in all cause mortality rates (year 1: odds ratio [OR] 5.77, 95% CI 0.74-45.14; year 3: OR 2.28, 95% CI 0.92-5.66; year 5: OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.88-3.74) and ARM (OR 1.47, 95% CI 0.99-2.19) between compliant and non-compliant patients in the first 5 years after EVAR. The re-intervention rate was statistically significantly higher in compliant patients from 3 to 5 years after EVAR (year 1: OR 6.36, 95% CI 0.23-172.73; year 3: OR 3.94, 85% CI 1.46-10.69; year 5: OR 5.34, 95% CI 1.87-15.29).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that patients compliant with EVAR surveillance programmes may have an increased re-intervention rate but do not appear to have better survival rates than non-compliant patients.

Factors Affecting Follow-Up Compliance in Patients After Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate potential factors affecting patient non-compliance after endovascular aneurysm repair.

METHOD

We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing elective or emergency endovascular repair for thoracic, abdominal aorta, or iliac artery aneurysm at a single institution from November 2007 to March 2014. Compliance to follow-up at 1, 6, and 12 months was assessed. Factors evaluated included patient demographics, size of aneurysm, distance between the patient's residence and outpatient clinic, urgency of surgery, and time of year in which the follow-up visits were scheduled.

RESULTS

During the study period, 205 patients (75% male and 25% female) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. One-month mortality was 1.1% for elective procedures and 16.1% for emergency procedures (p = 0.001). Overall mortality at 12 months was 6.3% and 32.3% for elective and emergency procedures, respectively (p = 0.0002). Highest compliance was observed at 1 month, with 184 patients (93%) attending. A significant decrease was seen at 6 (n = 102, 54%) and 12 (n = 89, 48%) months. At the 12-month mark, a larger proportion of minority patients were non-compliant compared with Caucasian patients. Confounders for non-compliance were analyzed using multivariate analysis, and statistical significance was found for widowed marital status (p = 0.008), travel distance >25 miles to the outpatient clinic (p = 0.032), and emergency repair of aneurysms (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSION

Despite emphasizing the importance of follow-up after endovascular aortic procedures, almost half of the treated patients were non-compliant. Our study identified travel distance, marital status, and urgency of surgery as factors that may affect patients' compliance to scheduled follow-up visits.

A Systematic Review of Predictors of Reintervention After EVAR: Guidance for Risk-Stratified Surveillance

BACKGROUND

Current surveillance protocols after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) are ineffective and costly. Stratifying surveillance by individual risk of reintervention requires an understanding of the factors involved in developing post-EVAR complications. This systematic review assessed risk factors for reintervention after EVAR and proposals for stratified surveillance.

METHODS

A systematic search according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was performed using EMBASE and MEDLINE databases to identify studies reporting on risk factors predicting reintervention after EVAR and proposals for stratified surveillance.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine studies reporting on 39 898 patients met the primary inclusion criteria for reporting predictors of reintervention or aortic complications with or without suggestions for stratified surveillance. Five secondary studies described external validation of risk scores for reintervention or aortic complications. There was great heterogeneity in reporting risk factors identified at the pre-EVAR, intraoperative, and post-EVAR stages of treatment, although large preoperative abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter was the most commonly observed risk factor for reintervention after EVAR.

CONCLUSION

Existing data on predictors of post-EVAR complications are generally of poor quality and largely derived from retrospective studies. Few studies describing suggestions for stratified surveillance have been subjected to external validation. There is a need to refine risk prediction for EVAR failure and to conduct prospective comparative studies of personalized surveillance with standard practice.

A Dedicated Surveillance Program Improves Compliance with Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Current recommendations suggest lifetime follow-up for endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) patients to avoid consequences associated with endoleak and aneurysm enlargement. Follow-up compliance has been reported between 43% and 92%, with most single-center studies citing successful follow-up surveillance at less than 60%. We investigated follow-up completeness with a defined surveillance program and subsequent secondary intervention prevalence from a single center.

METHODS

Our surveillance program notified patients of the need for follow-up imaging and surgeon review. Data were obtained from retrospective review of a prospective database, including operative and follow-up details, follow-up imaging completeness, endoleak incidence, and secondary intervention prevalence.

RESULTS

Five hundred seventeen patients received elective EVAR from 2005 to 2015. Surveillance was achieved in 425 (82.3%). Mean number of follow-up studies was 4.2 ± 2.9 and median time to first follow-up was 36 days. Four hundred forty-eight patients (86.7%) had freedom from intervention. Sixty-nine unique patients (13.3%) had 107 secondary interventions. Median time to first secondary intervention in 69 patients was 476 days. Mean number of imaging studies for secondary intervention patients was 6.1 ± 3.9, compared with mean 3.4 ± 2.3 for patients without (P < 0.001). Overall mortality was 24.6% (n = 127), including 32 deaths of unknown cause (6.2% overall) and 95 of non-EVAR-related causes (18.3%). No aneurysm-related deaths were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular post-EVAR surveillance through a dedicated program resulted in a high rate of follow-up compliance, 13.3% rate of secondary intervention, and low aneurysm-related mortality. Careful lifetime surveillance remains important in long-term care following elective EVAR.

Endovascular aneurysm repair patients who are lost to follow-up have worse outcomes

BACKGROUND

Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines recommend 1- and 12-month follow-up with computed tomography imaging for the year after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). We describe the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of EVAR patients who are lost to follow-up (LTF).

METHODS

All patients undergoing elective EVAR in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data set (January 2003-December 2015) were stratified according to long-term follow-up method (in-person vs phone call vs LTF). Mortality was captured for all patients by linkage with the Social Security Death Index. Univariable statistics, Kaplan-Meier estimated survival curves, and Cox proportional hazard modeling were used to compare groups. Coarsened exact matching analysis was then performed to refine the association between LTF and risk of post-EVAR death.

RESULTS

During the study period, 11,309 patients underwent elective EVAR (78% in-person follow-up, 11% phone call follow-up, 11% LTF). On univariable analysis, LTF patients had larger baseline aneurysms, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, more comorbidities, and worse baseline functional status compared to patients with in-person or phone call follow-up (P ≤ .05). Procedural factors (contrast material volume, blood transfusions, postoperative vasopressor use) were higher in the LTF group, as was the incidence of postoperative complications (P ≤ .05). Accordingly, LTF patients had longer postoperative lengths of stay and were less frequently discharged to home (P < .001). Five-year survival was lower for LTF vs phone call follow-up vs in-person follow-up (62% vs 68% vs 84%; P < .001). On multivariable analysis correcting for baseline differences between groups, there was a significantly higher risk of death for both the LTF group (hazard ratio, 6.45; 95% confidence interval, 4.89-8.51) and phone call follow-up group (hazard ratio, 3.48; 95% confidence interval, 2.66-4.57) compared with patients who followed up in person (P < .001). After coarsened exact matching on 30 preoperative and perioperative variables, 5-year survival after EVAR for LTF vs phone call follow-up vs in-person follow-up was 84.9% vs 84.8% vs 91.9%, respectively (log-rank, P < .001). Notably, patients with phone call follow-up had a lower prevalence of documented postoperative imaging compared with patients with in-person follow-up (56.1% vs 85.1%; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

EVAR patients with more comorbidities and a higher incidence of in-hospital complications tend to be more frequently LTF and ultimately have worse survival outcomes. In-person follow-up is associated with better post-EVAR survival and a higher rate of postoperative imaging. Phone follow-up confers a mortality risk equivalent to lack of follow-up, possibly as a result of inadequate postoperative imaging. Surgeons should stress the importance of office-based postoperative follow-up to all EVAR patients, particularly those with poor baseline health and functional status and more complicated perioperative courses.

An anatomic risk model to screen post endovascular aneurysm repair patients for aneurysm sac enlargement

BACKGROUND

Follow-up computed tomography angiography (CTA) scans add considerable postimplantation costs to endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVARs) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). By building a risk model, we hope to identify patients at low risk for aneurysm sac enlargement to minimize unnecessary CTAs.

METHODS

895 consecutive patients who underwent EVAR for AAA were reviewed, of which 556 met inclusion criteria. A Probit model was created for aneurysm sac enlargement, with preoperative aneurysm morphology, patient demographics, and operative details as variables.

RESULTS

Our final model included 287 patients and had a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 68.9%, and an accuracy of 70.4%. Ninety-nine (35%) of patients were assigned to the high-risk group, whereas 188 (65%) of patients were assigned to the low-risk group. Notably, regarding anatomic variables, our model reported that age, pulmonary comorbidities, aortic neck diameter, iliac artery length, and aneurysms were independent predictors of post-EVAR sac enlargement. With the exception of age, all statistically significant variables were qualitatively supported by prior literature. With regards to secondary outcomes, the high-risk group had significantly higher proportions of AAA-related deaths (5.1% versus 1.1%, P = 0.037) and Type 1 endoleaks (9.1% versus 3.2%, P = 0.033).

CONCLUSIONS

Our model is a decent predictor of patients at low risk for post AAA EVAR aneurysm sac enlargement and associated complications. With additional validation and refinement, it could be applied to practices to cut down on the overall need for postimplantation CTA.

Abdominal aortic aneurysms in women

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has long been recognized as a condition predominantly affecting males, with sex-associated differences described for almost every aspect of the disease from pathophysiology and epidemiology to morbidity and mortality. Women are generally spared from AAA formation by the immunomodulating effects of estrogen, but once they develop, the natural history of AAAs in women appears to be more aggressive, with more rapid expansion, a higher tendency to rupture at smaller diameters, and higher mortality following rupture. However, simply repairing AAAs at smaller diameters in women is a debatable solution, as even elective endovascular AAA repair is fraught with higher morbidity and mortality in women compared to men. The goal of this review is to summarize what is currently known about the effect of gender on AAA presentation, treatment, and outcomes. Additionally, we aim to review current controversies over screening recommendations and threshold for repair in women.

Compliance of postendovascular aortic aneurysm repair imaging surveillance

OBJECTIVE

Imaging surveillance after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is critical. In this study we analyzed compliance with imaging surveillance after EVAR and its effect on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of 565 EVAR patients (August 2001-November 2013), who were followed using duplex ultrasound and/or computed tomography angiography. Patients were considered noncompliant (NC) if they did not have any follow-up imaging for 2 years and/or missed their first post-EVAR imaging over 6 months. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare compliance rates in EVAR patients with hostile neck (HN) vs favorable neck (FN) anatomy (according to instructions for use). A multivariate analysis was also done to correlate compliance and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Forty-three percent were compliant (7% had no follow-up imaging) and 57% were NC. The mean follow-up for compliant patients was 25.4 months (0-119 months) vs 31.4 months for NC (0-140 months). The mean number of imaging was 3.5 for compliant vs 2.6 for NC (P < .0001). Sixty-four percent were NC for HN patients vs 50% for FN patients (P = .0007). The rates of compliance at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years for all patients were 78%, 63%, 55%, 45%, and 32%; and 84%, 68%, 61%, 54%, and 40% for FN patients; and 73%, 57%, 48%, 37%, and 25% for HN patients (P = .009). The NC rate for patients with late endoleak and/or sac expansion was 58% vs 54% for patients with no endoleak (P = .51). The NC rate for patients with late reintervention was 70% vs 53% for patients with no reintervention (P = .1254). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that patients with peripheral arterial disease had an odds ratio of 1.9 (P = .0331), patients with carotid disease had an odds ratio of 2 (P = .0305), and HN patients had an odds ratio of 1.8 (P = .0007) for NC. Age and residential locations were not factors in compliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, compliance of imaging surveillance after EVAR was low, particularly in HN EVAR patients, and additional studies are needed to determine if strict post-EVAR surveillance is necessary, and its effect on long-term clinical outcome.

Transitions of care and long-term surveillance after vascular surgery

Quality care of vascular surgery patients extends to the postoperative coordination of care and long-term surveillance, including the medical management of vascular disease. This is particularly highlighted in contemporary modern vascular surgery practice, as tremendous focus is being placed on postoperative adverse events and hospital readmissions. The purpose of this review is to provide a contemporary perspective of transitions of care at discharge and long-term surveillance recommendations after vascular surgery interventions.