Any Postoperative Surveillance Improves Survival after Endovascular Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Abstract

Background: Endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has advanced the care of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) with improved early postoperative morbidity and mortality. However, this comes at the cost of a rigorous postoperative surveillance schedule to monitor for further aneurysmal degeneration. Adherence to surveillance recommendations is known to be poor in the elective setting, but has yet to be studied in the ruptured population. The aim of this study is to investigate predictors of incomplete surveillance after EVAR for rAAA (rEVAR) and examine how adherence impacts outcomes.

Methods: This was a retrospective case control study of patients undergoing rEVAR at a multiple hospital single healthcare center (2003-2020). Patients were excluded if they underwent open conversion during their index hospitalization or died within 60 days of surgery. Follow-up was broadly categorized as complete surveillance (60-day postoperative visit and annually thereafter) or incomplete surveillance, comprising both patients with less than recommended surveillance (minimal surveillance) and completely lost to follow-up (LTF). Any follow-up was defined as patients with complete or minimal surveillance. We investigated predictors of complete versus incomplete surveillance by multivariate logistic regression. Secondary outcomes included overall survival and cumulative incidence of reintervention controlling for the competing risk of mortality, generating hazard ratios (HR) and subdistribution hazard ratios (SHR).

Results: One-hundred and sixty patients (mean age 74 ± 10.1 years, 81.2% male) out of 673 total rAAA met study inclusion criteria. Complete surveillance was seen in 41.3% of our cohort, with the remainder with minimal surveillance (29.4%) or LTF (29.4%). Incomplete surveillance was associated with male sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.56; 95% CI 1.02-6.43), lack of a primary care provider (PCP; OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.04-0.99), and longer driving distance from home to treating hospital (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.08-5.20). Survival was not different between complete and incomplete surveillance groups, however any follow-up conferred improved survival over LTF (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.331-0.997; P = 0.049). Reintervention was associated with incomplete surveillance (SHR 0.29; 95% CI 0.11-0.75), and discharge to a facility (SHR 0.25; 95% CI 0.067-0.94).

Conclusions: Incomplete surveillance was observed in over 50% of patients who underwent rEVAR and was associated with male sex, lack of PCP, and longer driving distance. Any follow-up conferred a survival benefit, yet incomplete surveillance was associated with a lower risk of reintervention. Targeted strategies to prevent LTF, and less stringent, personalized follow-up plans that may confer similar survival benefit with better patient adherence should be investigated.