Surveillance After Surgical and Endovascular Treatment for Peripheral Artery Disease: a Dutch Survey

At present, there is no clear, optimal approach to surveillance after invasive treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in terms of modality, duration, clinical benefit, and cost effectiveness. The ongoing debate on the clinical benefit and cost effectiveness of standard surveillance creates a clear knowledge gap and may result in overtreatment or undertreatment. In this study, a survey was conducted among vascular surgeons in the Netherlands to assess the currently applied surveillance programmes.

All vascular surgeons from the Dutch Society for Vascular Surgery received an online survey on follow up after open and endovascular revascularisation in patients with PAD. Surveillance was defined as at least one follow up visit after intervention with or without additional imaging or ankle brachial index (ABI) measurement. Ten types of PAD intervention were surveyed.

Surveys were returned by 97 (46.2%) of 210 vascular surgeons, and 76% reported using a routine follow up protocol after an invasive intervention. Clinical follow up only is most commonly performed after femoral endarterectomy (53%). After peripheral bypass surgery, clinical follow up only is applied rarely (4 - 8%). In six of the 10 interventions surveyed, duplex ultrasound (DUS) was the most used imaging modality for follow up. After bypass surgery, 76 - 86% of vascular surgeons perform DUS with or without ABI measurement. After endovascular interventions, 21 - 60% performed DUS surveillance. Lifelong surveillance is most often applied after aortobifemoral bypass (57%). Surveillance frequency and duration vary greatly within the same intervention. Frequencies range from every three or six months to annually. Duration ranges from one time surveillance to lifelong follow up.

There is significant practice variation in surveillance after surgical and endovascular treatment of patients with PAD in the Netherlands. Prospective studies to evaluate treatment outcomes and to define the clinical need and cost effectiveness of standardised surveillance programmes for patients with PAD are recommended.