Systematic review and narrative synthesis of surveillance practices after endovascular intervention for lower limb peripheral arterial disease

Kitty HF Wong, Ben E Zucker, Bethany G Wardle, Patrick A Coughlin, Katherine Chaplin, Hung-Yuan Cheng, Robert J Hinchliffe, Chris P Twine, Graeme K Ambler*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)
34 Downloads (Pure)


The optimal timing and modality of surveillance after endovascular intervention for peripheral arterial disease is controversial, and no randomised 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 following peripheral endovascular intervention in randomised trials.

Data Sources
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and WHO trial registry databases.

Systematic review of the literature was performed to capture surveillance strategies used in randomised 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 3.46 modalities), most commonly clinical examination (96%), ankle-brachial index (80%), duplex ultrasound (75%), and digital subtraction angiography (51%). Trials involving infrapopliteal lesions used more angiographic surveillance than trials with femoropopliteal lesions (p=0.006).

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 to those treating femoropopliteal lesions in the first 12 months after endovascular intervention (mean 5 vs. 3 surveillance visits; p=0.017). Trials with drug-eluting devices had longer surveillance duration compared to those without (mean 26 vs. 19 months; p=0.020).

There is a high level of variation in the modality, duration, and intensity of surveillance protocols used in randomised trials comparing different types of peripheral endovascular arterial intervention. Further research is required to determine the value and impact of post-procedural surveillance on patient outcomes.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)372-380.e15
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Issue number1
Early online date7 Sept 2021
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2022

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Supported by Learning and Research at North Bristol NHS Trust , the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust , and the University of Bristol . The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery


  • systematic review
  • peripheral arterial disease
  • endovascular procedures


Dive into the research topics of 'Systematic review and narrative synthesis of surveillance practices after endovascular intervention for lower limb peripheral arterial disease'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this