Duplex Ultrasound-Only Surveillance after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair is Associated with Favorable Long-Term Outcomes.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Long-term data surrounding the impact of different endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) surveillance strategies are limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to characterize postoperative imaging patterns, as well as to evaluate the association of duplex ultrasound surveillance after the first postoperative year with 5-year EVAR outcomes. METHODS: EVAR patients (2003-2016), who survived at least 1 year without aneurysm rupture, conversion to open repair, and reintervention in the Vascular Implant Surveillance and Interventional Outcomes Network were examined to provide all subjects ≥3 years of follow-up time. Patients were categorized into 6 cohorts after the first postoperative year No imaging (N = 953); computed tomography (CT)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-only (N = 2,976); duplex ultrasound-only (DUS; N = 1,808); combined CT/MRI + DUS with >50% being CT/MRI (N = 1,937); combined CT/MRI + DUS with >50% being DUS (N = 2,253); and mixed (CT + DUS + MRI N = 1,272). Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA)-related reintervention, rupture, conversion to open repair, and all-cause mortality were estimated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Multivariable logistic regression models identified variables associated with using DUS-only imaging (versus CT/MRI only). Cox regression models compared 5-year outcomes between patients receiving DUS-only versus CT/MRI-only imaging. RESULTS: A total of 11,199 EVAR patients were examined (mean age 76 ± 7 years; female 20%; nonelective 10%). DUS-only imaging surveillance after the first postoperative year was more likely to occur after elective repairs, as well as among older, male patients. Smaller (<6 cm) preoperative AAA diameter and absence of documented concurrent iliac aneurysm was also associated with DUS-only follow-up. Additionally, no endoleak detection on index EVAR completion imaging, as well as a documented >5 mm decrease in AAA sac diameter at 1-year follow-up was more common with DUS-only surveillance protocols. Post-EVAR DUS-only imaging after the first postoperative year had the lowest incidence of reintervention, conversion to open repair, and rupture (as well as the composite reintervention/open conversion/rupture; log-rank P < 0.001 for all). Further, patients receiving exclusively DUS after their first postoperative year had better overall survival (log-rank P < 0.001). These outcome advantages that were associated with DUS-only surveillance compared with CT/MRI-only surveillance after EVAR persisted when controlling for baseline covariates, preoperative AAA diameter, prior aortic surgery history, sac growth, and presence of endoleak (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: EVAR patients selected for DUS-only surveillance after the first postoperative year have excellent freedom from AAA-related reintervention, conversion to open repair, rupture and all-cause mortality. These findings remained on multivariable analysis after adjusting for baseline characteristics, endoleak status and sac diameter changes within the first year. This is the first registry-based investigation to document long-term EVAR outcomes for patients entered into a DUS-only monitoring protocol which serves to corroborate the growing evidence base that DUS may be able to supplant CT surveillance in certain subgroups. A prospective randomized multicenter trial comparing DUS versus CT-based imaging after EVAR is needed to validate these findings which may serve to change current practice guidelines, as well as industry and regulatory stakeholder requirements.