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

Social Determinants of Health Factors and Loss-To-Follow-Up in the Field of Vascular Surgery

BACKGROUND

It is estimated that 22-57% of vascular patients are lost to follow-up (LTF) which is of concern as the Society of Vascular Surgery recommends annual patient follow-up. The purpose of this report was to identify social determinants of health factors (SDoH) and their relationship to LTF in vascular patients.

METHODS

The methods employed were a systematic literature review of 29 empirical articles and a retrospective quality improvement report with 27 endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) patients at the University of Chicago.

RESULTS

The systematic literature review resulted in 2,931 articles which were reduced to 29 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Demographic variables were more frequently cited than SDoH factors, but the most common were smoking, transportation, and socioeconomic status/insurance. Additionally, 176 EVAR and TEVAR patients were called resulting in 27 patients who completed a SDoH questionnaire. Twenty-six percent indicated they had missed at least 1 appointment with the top reasons being work or family responsibilities. Due to limited patient size no statistical analyses were performed, but frequencies of responses to SDoH questions were reported to augment the existing limited literature and guide future research into variables such as one's ability to pay for basics like food or mortgage.

CONCLUSIONS

SDoH factors are important yet understudied aspects of endovascular repairs that require more research to understand their impact on vascular surgery follow-up rates and outcomes. Additional research is needed as lack of consideration of such factors may impact the generalizability of existing research and such knowledge may help in informing clinician treatment plans.

The benefits of a centralized remote surveillance program for vascular patients

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the clinical and financial utility of a centralized remote surveillance program for vascular patients compared with traditional outpatient follow-up.

METHODS

In 2014, the Royal Adelaide Hospital Department of Vascular Surgery introduced a centralized remote surveillance program where suitable patients were monitored by remote imaging in lieu of traditional outpatient appointments (OPAs). Surveillance imaging was performed at a site local to the patient and was reviewed centrally by a dedicated surveillance nurse. We undertook a 5-year retrospective analysis of the program's prospectively maintained database since its inception. Costs for inpatient admissions and OPAs were retrieved from hospital financial databases. The surveillance database and electronic patient records were analyzed for number and outcome of surveillance scans, interventions, and OPAs. Additional savings in travel distance, fuel costs, and CO₂ emissions were also calculated.

RESULTS

Over 5 years, 1262 patients underwent a mean of four scans per patient. A total of 3718 OPAs were saved, approximating 930 hours of clinic and consultant time, with associated savings of Australian (A)$1,524,900 (United States [US]$ 1,065,684) over 5 years (A$ 304,980 [US$ 213,137] per year). For every OPA avoided, each patient saved 197 km travel and A$87 (US$ 61) fuel costs, with an associated 115 kg of CO₂ emissions saved. Over 5 years, this equated to savings of 248,173 km travel, A$ 110,136 (US$ 76,969) fuel costs, and 146 tons of CO₂ emissions. A total of 134 surveillance-detected pathologies (10.6%) required intervention, a further 28 despite surveillance (2.2%), and three following surveillance cessation (0.2%). Subgroup analysis demonstrated that interventions despite surveillance were three times more expensive and incurred four times longer admissions than those due to surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

Remote vascular surveillance, particularly applicable in our current COVID-19 pandemic climate, is associated with quantifiable financial, clinical, patient, and environmental beneficial outcomes and can be safely delivered to populations spanning large geographical areas such as those in Australia.

Longer follow-up intervals following EVAR are safe and appropriate after marked aneurysm sac regression

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) shrinkage after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a surrogate marker for successful exclusion. Our study characterized aneurysm sac remodeling after EVAR to identify a pattern that may be associated with benign AAA behavior and would safely allow a less rigorous follow-up regimen after EVAR.

METHODS

Elective infrarenal EVARs performed between 2008 and 2011 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. AAA sac diameters using the minor axis measurement from ultrasound imaging or computer tomography angiogram imaging were compared with the baseline diameter from the 1-month postoperative computer tomography angiogram. The primary outcome was a composite of freedom from postoperative reintervention or rupture. We compared those with AAA sacs who regressed to predefined minimum diameter thresholds with those who did not. Outcomes were plotted with Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using log-rank testing and Fine-Gray regression using death as a competing risk, clustered on graft type. For patients whose AAA reached the minimum sac diameter, landmark analysis evaluated ongoing size changes including further regression and sac re-expansion.

RESULTS

A total of 540 patients (aged 75.1 ± 8.2 years; 82.0% male) underwent EVAR with an average preoperative AAA size of 55.2 ± 11.5 mm. The median postoperative follow-up was 5.3 years (interquartile range, 1.4-8.7 years) during which 64 patients underwent reintervention and 4 ruptured. AAA sac regression to ≤40 mm in diameter was associated with improved freedom from reintervention or rupture overall (log-rank, P < .01), which was maintained after controlling for the competing risk of death (P < .01). In 376 patients (70%) whose aneurysm sac remained >40 mm, 99 reinterventions were performed on 63 patients. Of 166 (31%) patients whose sac regressed to ≤40 mm, only 1 patient required a reintervention, and no one ruptured. The mean time to a diameter of ≤40 mm was 2.3 ± 1.9 years. Only eight patients (5%) developed sac re-expansion to >45 mm; all but two occurred at least 3 years after initially regressing to ≤40 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

In long-term follow-up, patients whose minimum AAA sac diameter regressed ≤40 mm after EVAR experienced a very low rate of reintervention, rupture, or sac re-expansion. Most sac re-expansion occurred at least 3 years after reaching this threshold and did not result in clinical events. Increasing follow-up frequency up to 3-year intervals once the AAA sac regresses to 40 mm would carry minimal risk of aneurysm-related morbidity.

Meta-analysis of phase-specific survival after elective endovascular versus surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm from randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies

OBJECTIVE

Although endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) significantly decreases perioperative mortality compared with open surgical repair (OSR), we have not concluded superiority between EVAR and OSR beyond the perioperative period. The aim of this study was to compare phase-specific survival after EVAR vs OSR.

METHODS

The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline. Embase and MEDLINE were searched up to November 2019 to identify randomized controlled trials and propensity score-matched studies that investigated ≥2-year all-cause mortality (primary outcome) after EVAR vs OSR for intact infrarenal AAA. For each study, the hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) of mortality for EVAR vs OSR was calculated using survival curves for the following specific phases: early term (0-2 years after repair), midterm (2-6 years after repair), long term (6-10 years after repair), and very long term (≥10 years after repair). The risk ratio (RR) in the perioperative (in-hospital or 30-day) period was also extracted. Phase-specific HRs or RRs were separately pooled using the random effects model. Sensitivity analyses were performed by removing one study at a time to confirm that our findings were not derived from any single study. Funnel plot asymmetry was also examined using the linear regression test.

RESULTS

Our search identified four randomized controlled trials and seven propensity score-matched studies enrolling a total of 106,243 AAA patients assigned to EVAR (n = 53,123) or OSR (n = 53,120). The mortality after EVAR compared with OSR was significantly lower in the perioperative period (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.29-0.51; P < .00001) and similar in the early-term period (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.84-1.03; P = .16). Notably, significantly higher mortality was observed in the EVAR group compared with the OSR group in the midterm period (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.03-1.29; P = .01). However, similar mortality was observed between the EVAR group and the OSR group in the long-term (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.96-1.17; P = .27) and very-long-term (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.93-1.47; P = .19) periods. In sensitivity analyses, the significant benefit of EVAR in the perioperative period and that of OSR in the midterm period were not changed. No funnel plot asymmetry was identified in all analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with OSR, EVAR was associated with lower perioperative mortality and higher mortality in the midterm period for intact infrarenal AAA. The superiority of EVAR was absent in the early-term period, and the inferiority of EVAR in the midterm period disappeared in the long-term and very-long-term periods.

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.