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.
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.
Authors: Dusadee Sarangarm; Jordan Knepper; John Marek; Kristen L Biggs; Diane Robertson; Mark Langsfeld Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Heiko Uthoff; Constantino Peña; Barry T Katzen; Ripal Gandhi; James West; James F Benenati; Philipp Geisbüsch Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Linda Visser; Robert A Pol; Ignace F J Tielliu; Jan J A M van den Dungen; Clark J Zeebregts Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2014-01-17 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Andres Schanzer; Louis M Messina; Kaushik Ghosh; Jessica P Simons; William P Robinson; Francesco A Aiello; Robert J Goldberg; Allison B Rosen Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Marcus R Kret; Amir F Azarbal; Erica L Mitchell; Timothy K Liem; Gregory J Landry; Gregory L Moneta Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Frank A Lederle; Julie A Freischlag; Tassos C Kyriakides; Jon S Matsumura; Frank T Padberg; Ted R Kohler; Panagiotis Kougias; Jessie M Jean-Claude; Dolores F Cikrit; Kathleen M Swanson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-11-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Joseph Anderson; Ryan King; Thomas Brothers; Jacob Robison; Ravi Veeraswamy; Mathew Wooster; Rupak Mukherjee; Jean Marie Ruddy Journal: Ann Vasc Surg Date: 2020-01-07 Impact factor: 1.466
Authors: Elizabeth A Andraska; Amanda R Phillips; Katherine M Reitz; Sina Asaadi; Yancheng Dai; Edith Tzeng; Michel Makaroun; Nathan Liang Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2022-01-29 Impact factor: 4.860
Authors: Matthew Joe Grima; Mourad Boufi; Martin Law; Dan Jackson; Kate Stenson; Benjamin Patterson; Ian Loftus; Matt Thompson; Alan Karthikesalingam; Peter Holt Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2018-01-05 Impact factor: 7.069