Systematic review and narrative synthesis of surveillance practices after endovascular intervention for lower limb...

The optimal timing and modality of surveillance after endovascular intervention for peripheral arterial disease is controversial, and no randomized trial to assess the value of peripheral endovascular intervention has ever been performed. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the practice of surveillance after peripheral endovascular intervention in randomized trials.

We used the Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and WHO trial registry databases in this systematic review of the literature to capture surveillance strategies used in randomized trials comparing endovascular interventions. Surveillance protocols were assessed for completeness, modalities used, duration, and intensity.

Ninety-six different surveillance protocols were reported in 103 trials comparing endovascular interventions. Protocol specification was incomplete in 32% of trials. The majority of trials used multiple surveillance modalities (mean of 3.46 modalities), most commonly clinical examination (96%), ankle-brachial index (80%), duplex ultrasound examination (75%), and digital subtraction angiography (51%). Trials involving infrapopliteal lesions used more angiographic surveillance than trials with femoropopliteal lesions (P = .006). The median number of surveillance visits in the first 12 months after intervention was three and the mean surveillance duration was 21 months. Trials treating infrapopliteal vessels had a higher surveillance intensity compared with those treating femoropopliteal lesions in the first 12 months after endovascular intervention (mean 5 vs 3 surveillance visits; P = .017). Trials with drug-eluting devices had longer surveillance duration compared with those without (mean 26 vs 19 months; P = .020).

There is a high level of variation in the modality, duration, and intensity of surveillance protocols used in randomized trials comparing different types of peripheral endovascular arterial intervention. Further research is required to determine the value and impact of postprocedural surveillance on patient outcomes.