Advertisement

CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 1130–1136 | Cite as

Patient Compliance with Surveillance Following Elective Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

  • Anthony D. Godfrey
  • Abigail H. M. Morbi
  • Ian M. Nordon
Clinical Investigation

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.

Keywords

EVAR Endovascular aneurysm repair AAA Surveillance Outcomes Compliance 

Notes

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.

References

  1. 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):434–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Van der Vliet JA, Kool LJ, Van Hoek F (2011) Simplifying post-EVAR surveillance. Eur J Endovasc Surg 42(2):193–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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):1175–1178CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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):497–505CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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):739–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lifeline Registry of EVAR Publications Committee (2005) Lifeline registry of endovascular aneurysm repair: long-term primary outcome measures. J Vasc Surg 42(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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):1075–1081CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):25–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 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):547–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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):585–590CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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):624–632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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):915–920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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):23–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 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):831–836CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Toya N, Kanaoka Y, Ohki T (2014) Secondary interventions following endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 62(2):87–94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York and the Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe (CIRSE) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony D. Godfrey
    • 1
  • Abigail H. M. Morbi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ian M. Nordon
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Unit of Cardiac Vascular and Thoracic Surgery (CV&T), Department of Vascular SurgeryUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation TrustSouthamptonUK
  2. 2.University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations