Postintervention Surveillance of Endovascular Procedures

  • John P. Henretta
  • Kim J. Hodgson


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.


Renal Artery Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Endovascular Procedure Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Duplex Scanning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Turnipseed WD, Acher CW: Postoperative surveillance: an effective means of detecting correctable lesions that threaten graft patency, Arch Surg 120: 324–328, 1985.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ahn SS, Rutherford RB, Becker GJ et al: Reporting standards for lower extremity arterial endovascular procedures, J Vase Surg 17: 1103–1107, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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. 10.
    Bray A: Reporting guidelines: another perspective,/Endovasc Surg 2: 334–340, 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Veith FJ, Marin ML: Can there really be “uniform” reporting guidelines? J Endovasc Surg 2: 332–333, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Myers KA: Reporting guidelines for open and endovascular surgery: why the current recommendations should be revised, J Endovasc Surg 2: 321–328, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rutherford RB: Revising the reporting guidelines: how far do we need to go? J Endovasc Surg 2: 329–331, 1995.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sacks D, Robinson ML, Marinelli DL, Perlmutter GS: Evaluation of the peripheral arteries with duplex US after angioplasty, Radiology 176: 39–44, 1990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hudspeth DA, Hansen KJ, Reavis SW et al: Renal duplex sonography after treatment of renovascular disease, J Vase Surg 18: 381–390, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    White RA, Donayre CE, Walot I et al: Modular bifurcation endoprosthesis for treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms, Ann Surg 226: 381–391, 1997.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • John P. Henretta
  • Kim J. Hodgson

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations