Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

What Determines and Are the Consequences of Surveillance Intensity after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair?

What Determines and Are the Consequences of Surveillance Intensity after Endovascular Abdominal... Follow-up examinations are advised 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months and yearly thereafter by the European Collaborating Group on Stent-Graft Techniques for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair (EUROSTAR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the determinants and consequences of surveillance completeness. Patients who underwent endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair between October 1996 and August 2004 and enrolled in the EUROSTAR registry were analyzed. Two groups were compared: patients who attended all scheduled visits (group A) and those who came infrequently (group B). Odds ratios and hazard rates (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined to detect which patient characteristics and complications were associated with follow-up intensity. Of the 4,433 patients, 1,538 (35%) attended all scheduled visits until the end of follow-up (group A). Analysis of patient characteristics demonstrated that intensive visitors were more often smokers, hyperlipemic, and considered unfit for open surgery or general anesthesia. Complications during follow-up, including endoleaks (24% vs. 20%), kinking (3.5% vs. 2.5%), and migration (4.9% vs. 3.5%), appeared significantly more frequently in group A. Despite intensive follow-up of this category, still a greater proportion died (12% vs. 9%, adjusted HR = 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.8). After 84 months of follow-up, the cumulative survival rates in groups A and B were 71% and 74%, respectively (p < 0.0001). It seems that follow-up intensity was based on baseline patient characteristics. High-risk patients had, despite more intensive surveillance, still more complications after adjustment for patient, morphological, and center-specific characteristics. Further assessment is indicated to evaluate the effectiveness of different frequencies of surveillance visits. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Annals of Vascular Surgery Springer Journals

What Determines and Are the Consequences of Surveillance Intensity after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair?

Download PDF
8 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/what-determines-and-are-the-consequences-of-surveillance-intensity-gxRAVt7QyU

References (25)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by Annals of Vascular Surgery Inc.
Subject
Medicine & Public Health; Abdominal Surgery
ISSN
0890-5096
eISSN
1615-5947
DOI
10.1007/s10016-005-7751-2
pmid
16177865
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Follow-up examinations are advised 1, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months and yearly thereafter by the European Collaborating Group on Stent-Graft Techniques for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair (EUROSTAR). The aim of this study was to evaluate the determinants and consequences of surveillance completeness. Patients who underwent endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair between October 1996 and August 2004 and enrolled in the EUROSTAR registry were analyzed. Two groups were compared: patients who attended all scheduled visits (group A) and those who came infrequently (group B). Odds ratios and hazard rates (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined to detect which patient characteristics and complications were associated with follow-up intensity. Of the 4,433 patients, 1,538 (35%) attended all scheduled visits until the end of follow-up (group A). Analysis of patient characteristics demonstrated that intensive visitors were more often smokers, hyperlipemic, and considered unfit for open surgery or general anesthesia. Complications during follow-up, including endoleaks (24% vs. 20%), kinking (3.5% vs. 2.5%), and migration (4.9% vs. 3.5%), appeared significantly more frequently in group A. Despite intensive follow-up of this category, still a greater proportion died (12% vs. 9%, adjusted HR = 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.8). After 84 months of follow-up, the cumulative survival rates in groups A and B were 71% and 74%, respectively (p < 0.0001). It seems that follow-up intensity was based on baseline patient characteristics. High-risk patients had, despite more intensive surveillance, still more complications after adjustment for patient, morphological, and center-specific characteristics. Further assessment is indicated to evaluate the effectiveness of different frequencies of surveillance visits.

Journal

Annals of Vascular Surgery – Springer Journals

Published: Sep 21, 2005

There are no references for this article.