Are current follow-up intervals justified in patients with non-emergent aortic surgeries?

OBJECTIVES

Evidence for different surveillance protocols following aortic treatment is still lacking. The aim of this study was to analyse the clinical relevance of a first follow-up visit after 6 months.

METHODS

Between January 2018 and December 2019, 464 patients treated for non-emergent aortic pathologies were retrospectively analysed. The incidence of aortic events during follow-up (ie, death, reintervention, endoleaks, anastomotic/new aneurysms and diameter progression over time) was investigated. A discrete-time non-homogeneous Markov Chain Model was used to analyse the data and to arrive at the number of skipped 6-month follow-up visits needed to harm a patient.

RESULTS

After 6 months, 2 (1.77%) patients had died, 15 (15.31%) patients suffered from aortic events and a total of 4 (3.67%) patients had undergone reintervention after endovascular surgery, compared to 0 deaths, 2 (0.59%) patients with aortic events and 5 (1.48%) reinterventions after open surgery. In our Markov Chain Model, after 6 months, 4.75% of patients showed aortic events, received a reintervention or died. Sixty patients would need to skip their 6-month follow-up visit for one indication for reintervention to go unnoticed. Only 24 would need to skip it for one complication to go by unnoticed. This number is 55 after open surgery and 9 after endovascular surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

After elective endovascular or open aortic surgery without immediate in-hospital postoperative aortic events, the first follow-up visit after 6 months is important. Extending the first interval to longer time periods might lead to a considerable increase in missed aortic events. The cost and radiation exposure of frequent follow-ups must be balanced against the benefits of early preventative aortic interventions, warranting further research.