ArticleInterdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2024
Are current follow-up intervals justified in patients with non-emergent aortic surgeries?
Article in Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEvidence 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.
methodsBetween 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.
resultsAfter 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.
conclusionsAfter 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.