Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Postintervention Surveillance of Endovascular Procedures

  • Chapter
Peripheral Endovascular Interventions

  • 134 Accesses

Abstract

As endovascular therapies gain increased acceptance for the treatment of vascular disease, postintervention surveillance becomes more critical. The underlying rationale for routine, systematic follow-up is multifactorial. The primary reason is to improve the results of treatment by detecting failures or recurrences early enough in their course that their correction is as minimally involved as possible. It has been well demonstrated, for example, that correction of a threatened saphenous vein bypass improves its patency when compared to simple observation.1–3 This finding is thought to be applicable to endovascular therapies as well: Treatment of a recurrent stenosis with a second endovascular procedure, perhaps with supplemental stenting, is more likely to be initially technically successful and durable than an attempt to recannulate an occlusion that results from ignoring the recurrence. Furthermore, treatment of an occlusion may require thrombolysis, which has its own inherent risks. The advantages of close postintervention surveillance become even more obvious when dealing with an artery feeding an end-organ (e.g., the renal artery), in which case progression to occlusion may cause irretrievable organ injury.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bandyk DF, Schmitt DD, Seabrook GR et al: Monitoring functional patency of in situ saphenous vein bypasses: the impact of a surveillance protocol and elective revision, J Vase Surg 9: 286–296, 1989.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Berkowitz HD, Hobbs CL, Roberts B et al: Value of routine vascular laboratory studies to identify vein graft stenosis, Surgery 90: 971–979, 1981.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Turnipseed WD, Acher CW: Postoperative surveillance: an effective means of detecting correctable lesions that threaten graft patency, Arch Surg 120: 324–328, 1985.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Blum U, Krumme B, Flugel P et al: Treatment of ostial renal artery stenoses with vascular endoprostheses after unsuccessful balloon angioplasty, N Engl J Med 336: 459–465, 1997.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Raynaud AC, Beyssen BM, Turmel-Rodrigues LC et al: Renal artery stent placement: immediate and midterm technical and clinical results, J Vase Interv Radiol 5: 849–858, 1994.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tullis MJ, Zierler RE, Glickerman DJ et al: Results of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis: a follow-up study with duplex ultrasonography, J Vase Surg 25: 46–54, 1997.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rutherford RB, Becker GJ: Standards for evaluating and reporting the results of surgical and percutaneous therapy for peripheral arterial disease, Radiology 181: 277–281, 1991.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ahn SS, Rutherford RB, Becker GJ et al: Reporting standards for lower extremity arterial endovascular procedures, J Vase Surg 17: 1103–1107, 1993.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rutherford RB, Flanigan DP, Gupta SK et al: Suggested standards for reports dealing with lower extremity ischemia, J Vase Surg 4: 80–94, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bray A: Reporting guidelines: another perspective,/Endovasc Surg 2: 334–340, 1995.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Veith FJ, Marin ML: Can there really be “uniform” reporting guidelines? J Endovasc Surg 2: 332–333, 1995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Myers KA: Reporting guidelines for open and endovascular surgery: why the current recommendations should be revised, J Endovasc Surg 2: 321–328, 1995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Rutherford RB: Revising the reporting guidelines: how far do we need to go? J Endovasc Surg 2: 329–331, 1995.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sacks D, Robinson ML, Summers TA, Marinelli DL: The value of duplex sonography after peripheral artery angioplasty in predicting subacute restenosis, AJR 162: 179–183, 1994.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sacks D, Robinson ML, Marinelli DL, Perlmutter GS: Evaluation of the peripheral arteries with duplex US after angioplasty, Radiology 176: 39–44, 1990.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nyamekye I, Sommerville K, Raphael M et al: Non-invasive assessment of arterial stenoses in angioplasty surveillance: a comparison with angiography, Eur J Vase Endovasc Surg 12: 471–481, 1996.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mewissen MW, Kinney EV, Bandyk DF et al: The role of duplex scanning versus angiography in predicting outcome after balloon angioplasty in the femoropopliteal artery, J Vase Surg 15: 860–866, 1992.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Spijkerboer AM, Nass PC, de Valois JC et al: Evaluation of femoropopliteal arteries with duplex ultrasound after angioplasty: can we predict results at one year? Eur J Vase Endovasc Surg 12: 418–423, 1996.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sensier Y, Hartshorne T, Thrush A et al: A prospective comparison of lower limb colour-coded duplex scanning with arteriography, Eur J Vase Endovasc Surg 11: 170–175, 1996.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Winter-Warnars HAO, van der Graaf Y, Mali WPTM: Ankle-arm index, angiography, and duplex ultrasonography after recanalization of occlusions in femoropopliteal arteries: comparison of long-term results, Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol 19: 234–238, 1996.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Soulen MC, Benenati JF, Sheth S et al: Changes in renal artery Doppler indexes following renal angioplasty. Vase Interv Radiol 2: 457–462, 1991.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hudspeth DA, Hansen KJ, Reavis SW et al: Renal duplex sonography after treatment of renovascular disease, J Vase Surg 18: 381–390, 1993.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahn SS, Rutherford RB, Johnston KW et al: Reporting standards for infrarenal endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, J Vase Surg 25: 405–410, 1997.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Rozenablit A, Marin ML, Veith FJ et al: Endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: value of postoperative follow-up with helical CT, AJR 165: 1473–1479, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Balm R, Kaatee R, Blankensteijn JD et al: CT- angiography of abdominal aortic aneurysms after transfemoral endovascular aneurysm management, Eur J Vase Endovasc Surg 2: 182–188, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Wain RA, Marin ML, Ohki T et al: Endoleaks after endovascular graft treatment of aortic aneurysms: classification, risk factors, and outcome, J Vase Surg 27: 69–80, 1998.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. White GH, Yu W, May J et al: Endoleak as a complication of endoluminal grafting of abdominal aortic aneurysms: classification, incidence, diagnosis and management, J Endovasc Surg 4: 152–168, 1997.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. White RA, Donayre CE, Walot I et al: Modular bifurcation endoprosthesis for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms, Ann Surg 226: 381–391, 1997.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Moore WS, Rutherford RB: Transfemoral endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm: results of the North American EVT phase 1 trial, J Vase Surg 23: 543–553, 1996.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Blum U, Voshage G: Abdominal aortic aneurysm repair using the Meadox/Vanguard prosthesis: indications, implantation technique, and results, Tech Vase Intervent Radiol 1: 19–24, 1998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. White GH, Yu W, May J et al: Three-year experience with the White-Yu endovascular GAD graft for transluminal repair of aortic and iliac aneurysms, Endovasc Surg 4: 124–136, 1997.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. John P. Henretta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kim J. Hodgson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Vascular Surgery, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, 90509, Torrance, California, USA

    Rodney A. White MD (Chief. Professor of Surgery) (Chief. Professor of Surgery)

  2. UCLA School of Medicine, 90095, Los Angeles, California, USA

    Rodney A. White MD (Chief. Professor of Surgery) (Chief. Professor of Surgery)

  3. Stanford University Medical Center, 90509, Stanford, California, USA

    Thomas J. Fogarty MD (Professor of Surgery) (Professor of Surgery)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Henretta, J.P., Hodgson, K.J. (1999). Postintervention Surveillance of Endovascular Procedures. In: White, R.A., Fogarty, T.J. (eds) Peripheral Endovascular Interventions. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3105-7_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3105-7_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-3107-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-3105-7

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation