Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Patient Compliance with Surveillance Following Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

  • Clinical Investigation
  • Published:
CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Integral to maintaining good outcomes post-endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is a robust surveillance protocol. A significant proportion of patients fail to comply with surveillance, exposing themselves to complications. We examine EVAR surveillance in Wessex (UK), exploring factors that may predict poor compliance.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of 179 consecutive elective EVAR cases [2008–2013] was performed. 167 patients were male, with the age range of 50–95. Surveillance was conducted centrally (tertiary referral trauma centre) and at four spoke units. Surveillance compliance and predictors of non-compliance including age, gender, co-morbid status, residential location and socioeconomic status were analysed for univariate significance.

Results

Fifty patients (27.9 %) were non-compliant with surveillance; 14 (8.1 %) had no imaging post-EVAR. At 1 year, 56.1 % (of 123 patients) were compliant. At years 2 and 3, 41.5 and 41.2 % (of 65 and 34 patients, respectively) were compliant. Four years post-EVAR, only one of eight attended surveillance (12.5 %). There were no statistically significant differences in age (p = 0.77), co-morbid status or gender (p = 0.64). Distance to central unit (p = 0.67) and surveillance site (p = 0.56) was non-significant. While there was a trend towards compliance in upper-middle-class socioeconomic groups (ABC1 vs. C1C2D), correlating with >50 % of non-compliant patients living within <10 mile radius of the central unit, overall predictive value was not significant (p = 0.82).

Conclusions

Compliance with surveillance post-EVAR is poor. No independent predictor of non-compliance has been confirmed, but socioeconomic status appears to be relevant. There is a worrying drop-off in attendance beyond the first year. This study highlights a problem that needs to be addressed urgently, if we are to maintain good outcomes post-EVAR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jones WB, Taylor SM, Kalbaugh CA et al (2007) Lost to follow-up: a potential under-appreciated limitation of endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 46(3):434–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Van der Vliet JA, Kool LJ, Van Hoek F (2011) Simplifying post-EVAR surveillance. Eur J Endovasc Surg 42(2):193–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mor M, Niv G, Niv Y (2006) Patient retention in a clinical trial: a lesson from the rofecoxib (VIOXX) study. Dig Dis Sci 51(7):1175–1178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Elkouri S, Gloviczki P, McKusick MA et al (2004) Perioperative complications and early outcome after endovascular and open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 39(3):497–505

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Harris PL, Vallabhaneni SR, Desgranges P et al (2000) Incidence and risk factors of late rupture, conversion and death after endovascular repair of infrarenal aortic aneurysms: the EUROSTAR experience. European Collaborators on stent/graft techniques for aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 32(4):739–749

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lifeline Registry of EVAR Publications Committee (2005) Lifeline registry of endovascular aneurysm repair: long-term primary outcome measures. J Vasc Surg 42(1):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sarangarm D, Knepper J, Marek J et al (2010) Post-endovascular aneurysm repair patient outcomes and follow-up are not adversely impacted by long travel distance to tertiary vascular surgery centers. Ann Vasc Surg 24(8):1075–1081

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kret MR, Azarbal AF, Mitchell EL et al (2013) Compliance with long-term surveillance recommendations following endovascular aneurysm repair or type B aortic dissection. J Vasc Surg 58(1):25–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nordon IM, Karthikesalingam A, Hinchliffe RJ et al (2010) Secondary interventions following endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and the enduring value of graft surveillance. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 39(5):547–554

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Karthikesalingam A, Page AA, Pettengell C et al (2011) Heterogeneity in surveillance after endovascular aneurysm repair in the UK. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 42(5):585–590

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Holt PJ, Poloniecki JD, Khalid U et al (2009) Effect of endovascular aneurysm repair on the volume-outcome relationship in aneurysm repair. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2(6):624–632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Zhou W, Blay E Jr, Varu V et al (2014) Outcome and clinical significance of delayed endoleaks after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg 59(4):915–920

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Garg T, Baker LC, Mell MW (2015) Adherence to postoperative surveillance guidelines after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair among Medicare beneficiaries. J Vasc Surg 61(1):23–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kirkpatrick VE, Wilson SE, Williams RA, Gordon IL (2014) Surveillance computed tomographic arteriogram (CTA) does not change management before three years in patients who have a normal post-EVAR study. Ann Vasc Surg 28(4):831–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Toya N, Kanaoka Y, Ohki T (2014) Secondary interventions following endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 62(2):87–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr AHM Morbi was supported by the University of Southampton National Institute of Health Research Academic Foundation Programme. The authors acknowledge the support of the Vascular Surgery and Vascular Interventional Radiology Departments, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

Retrospective study: For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unit of Cardiac Vascular and Thoracic Surgery (CV&T), Department of Vascular Surgery, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 6YD, UK

    Anthony D. Godfrey, Abigail H. M. Morbi & Ian M. Nordon

  2. University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, SO16 6YD, UK

    Abigail H. M. Morbi & Ian M. Nordon

Authors
  1. Anthony D. Godfrey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Abigail H. M. Morbi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ian M. Nordon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ian M. Nordon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Godfrey, A.D., Morbi, A.H.M. & Nordon, I.M. Patient Compliance with Surveillance Following Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 38, 1130–1136 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-015-1073-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00270-015-1073-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation