Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: endovascular program development and results

Improvements in endovascular technology and techniques have allowed us to treat patients in ways we never thought possible. Today endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms is associated with markedly decreased morbidity and mortality when compared to the open surgical approach, yet there are several fundamental obstacles in our ability to offer these endovascular techniques to most patients with ruptured aneurysms. This article will focus on the technical aspects of endovascular aneurysm repair for rupture, with particular attention to developing a standardized multidisciplinary approach that will help ones ability to deal with not just the technical aspects of these procedures, but also address some of the challenges including: the availability of preoperative CT, the choice of anesthesia, percutaneous vs. femoral cut-down approach, use of aortic occlusion balloons, need for bifurcated vs. aorto-uniiliac stentgrafts, need for adjunctive procedures, diagnosis and treatment of abdominal compartment syndrome, and conversion to open surgical repair.     

Ultrasonographic screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE--To assess the prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysm in a selected group of men over the age of 60, and define main risk factors. DESIGN--Population based screening study. SETTING--Private Norwegian health maintenance organisation. SUBJECTS--500 men over the age of 60 years. INTERVENTIONS--General examination by a general practitioner, together with measurements of blood glucose and serum cholesterol concentrations. Abdominal scan with a B-mode ultrasound imager. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--An increase in the diameter of the aorta of more than 150% over the diameter at the origin of the superior mesenteric artery, or maximum diameter of more than 29 mm. Correlation with history of smoking, serum cholesterol concentration, and general health. RESULTS--29 patients (5.8%) had small, and 12 (2.4%) had large, abdominal aortic aneurysms. There was a significant association between aortic aneurysm and history of smoking (p < 0.01), poor health (defined as coexistent hypertension, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes mellitus) (p < 0.01), and increasing age (p = 0.025). There was no association with hypercholesterolaemia. CONCLUSION--Ultrasonic screening of groups at risk followed by elective operation may reduce mortality of abdominal aortic aneurysm.     

Cost-effectiveness of screening women for abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND: Women are usually not considered for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening because of their lower prevalence of disease. This position may, however, be questioned given the higher risk of rupture and the longer life expectancy among women. The purpose of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of screening 65-year-old women for AAA. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted to obtain data of importance to evaluate the effectiveness of screening women for AAA. Data were entered into a Markov simulation cohort model. RESULTS: The review suggested some main assumptions for women with AAA. Prevalence is 1.1%. In 6.8%, the AAA is of a size that merits surgery, and the patients are fit for a procedure. For patients with an AAA, the yearly risk for elective surgery and the rupture incidence was 3.1% and 2.4%, respectively, in the invited group and 1.1% and 5.7% in the noninvited group. The operative mortality for elective surgery was 3.5%, and the total mortality for ruptured AAA was 86.3%. The long-term mortality for AAA patients was 3.6 times higher than for an age-matched healthy population. Screening reduced the AAA rupture incidence by 33% and the AAA-related death rate by 35%. The cost per life year gained was estimated at $5911. CONCLUSION: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was similar to that found for screening men, which reflects the fact that the lower AAA prevalence in women is balanced by a higher rupture rate. Screening women for AAA may be cost-effective, and future evaluations on screening for AAA should include women.     

The case for expanding abdominal aortic aneurysm screening

Both the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence are re-evaluating their screening paradigms for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Currently, most countries that screen for AAA do so only in male ever-smokers between the ages of 65 and 75 years and in patients with a family history of AAA. However, these recommendations are based primarily on screening trials predating the endovascular era. The wider applicability of endovascular aneurysm repair and its safety profile, especially in the elderly, have changed the risk-benefit of repair and, by extension, screening. This is despite the decreasing prevalence of AAA thanks to improved medical therapies and lower smoking rates. This evidence summary critically examines the evidence behind screening and the potential for expanded screening.     

The management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm and incidence of rupture

Twenty-five years have passed since the first randomised controlled trial began its recruitment for screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in men aged 65 and above. Since this and other randomised trials, all launched in the late 80s and 90s of the last century, the epidemiologic profile of abdominal aortic aneurysm may have changed. The trials reported an AAA prevalence in the range of 4-7% for men aged 65 years or more. AAA-related mortality was significantly improved by screening, and after 13 years, the largest trial showed a benefit for all-cause mortality. Screening also was shown to be cost-effective. Today, there are studies showing a substantial decrease of AAA prevalence to sometimes less than 2% in men aged ≥ 65 years and there is evidence that the incidence of ruptured aneurysm and mortality from AAA is also declining. This decline preceded the implementation of screening programmes but may be due to a change in risk factor management. The prevalence of smoking has decreased and there has been improvement in the control of hypertension and a rising use of statins for cardiovascular risk prevention. Additionally, there is a shift of the burden to the older age group of ≥ 75 years. Such radical changes may influence screening policy and it is worth reflecting on the optimum age of screening - it might be better to screen at ages >65 years - or rescreening 5 to 10 years after the first screen.     

Abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture rates: A 7-year follow-up of the entire abdominal aortic aneurysm population detected by screening

Purpose: The goal of the current study was to identify the risk of rupture in the entire abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) population detected through screening and to review strategies for surgical intervention in light of this information. Methods: Two hundred eighteen AAAs were detected through ultrasound screening of a family practice population of 5394 men and women aged 65 to 80 years. Subjects with an AAA of less than 6.0 cm in diameter were followed prospectively with the use of ultrasound, according to our protocol, for 7 years. Patients were offered surgery if symptomatic, if the aneurysm expanded more than 1.0 cm per year, or if aortic diameter reached 6.0 cm. Results: The maximum potential rupture rate (actual rupture rate plus elective surgery rate) for small AAAs (3.0 to 4.4 cm) was 2.1% per year, which is less than most reported operative mortality rates. The equivalent rate for aneurysms of 4.5 to 5.9 cm was 10.2% per year. The actual rupture rate for aneurysms up to 5.9 cm using our criteria for surgery was 0.8% per year Conclusion: In centers with an operative mortality rate of greater than 2%, (1) surgical intervention is not indicated for asymptomatic AAAs of less than 4.5 cm in diameter, and (2) elective surgery should be considered only for patients with aneurysms between 4.5 and 6 cm in diameter that are expanding by more than 1 cm per year or for patients in whom symptoms develop. In centers with elective mortality rates of greater than 10% for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, the benefit to the patient of any surgical intervention for an asymptomatic AAA of less than 6.0 cm in diameter is questionable. (J Vasc Surg 1998;28:124-8.)     

Late results concerning feasibility and compliance from a randomized trial of ultrasonographic screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND: The study was an update at 10 years of a randomized trial of the efficacy of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The extent of benefit, feasibility and compliance were examined, and reasons why this intervention may fail a proportion of those screened were identified. METHODS: A total of 6058 men aged 65 years and over were randomized to a group invited to attend ultrasonographic screening or to a control group. The mortality rate from AAA in the two arms of the trial was compared using a Poisson model. Analyses were by intention to treat. RESULTS: There was a 21 per cent reduction in mortality rate from AAA over the 10-year follow-up (relative risk 0.79 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.53 to 1.40)). The observed relative mortality reduction peaked at 4 years with a 52 per cent reduction in the study group. Eighteen of 24 AAA deaths in the study group were among those who did not attend the first screen, or failed to comply with the follow-up protocol. CONCLUSION: A greater awareness of the benefits of full participation in a screening programme could provide a larger and sustained mortality reduction.     

Cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to develop a simulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in men. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted for different screening strategies in terms of age (60, 65, or 70 years) and risk profiles (all men or specific high-risk groups) of the screened population, and rescreening after 5 or 10 years. These data were analyzed in a Markov simulation cohort model. RESULTS: The cost per life year gained for different screening strategies ranged from US 8,309 dollars to US 14,084 dollars and was estimated at US 10,474 dollars when 65-year-old men were screened once. Screening 60-year-old men was equally cost-effective, with the advantage of more life years gained. We demonstrated a trade-off between high prevalence of AAA and lower life expectancy, eliminating the expected benefits of screening high-risk groups such as smokers (US 10,695 dollars) or cardiovascular patients (US 10,392 dollars). Assuming general population utility resulted in a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of US 13,900 dollars, whereas a hypothetical 5% reduction in utility among men with a screening-detected AAA raised the cost per QALY gained to US 75,100 dollars. CONCLUSION: This Markov model, which was based on a systematic review of the literature, supplied information on the estimated cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies. Screening men for AAA may be cost-effective in the long-term. Different screening strategies and quality-of-life effects related to screening for AAA need to be evaluated in future clinical studies.     

Ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in medicare beneficiaries

Ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has been shown to be beneficial and cost-effective for men aged 65-74. However, most screening studies have been conducted in Europe and Australia, where attendance for screening was higher than the single large U.S. study involving only veterans. The prevalence of AAA in the U.S. general population is not well defined, nor is the best method of recruitment for screening. Letters of invitation for a free screening ultrasound for AAA were sent to 30,000 randomly selected Medicare beneficiaries from the hospital referral region of three university-affiliated hospitals without restriction by age, gender, or comorbidity. Attendance for screening was calculated by age, gender, and travel distance to the screening center. Telephone calls to a random sample of nonresponders were made to determine the reason for failure to attend. Prevalence of AAA by ultrasound and known risk factors for AAA (e.g., age, gender, smoking status) were determined. The attendance rate was 7% (2,005). Attendance was greater with male gender (p < 0.01), younger age (p < 0.05), and decreased travel distance to the screening center (p < 0.05). The primary reasons for failure to attend included incorrect address or vital status, poor health, and lack of interest. Prevalence of previously undetected AAA was 2.8% in men and 0.2% in women. AAA was predicted by smoking status and male gender (p < 0.01 for each). Unselected invitation of Medicare beneficiaries for ultrasound screening for AAA results in a low attendance and low yield of AAA. The prevalence estimates from this study may not reflect the entire Medicare population given the low attendance and may reflect the healthy habits of those most interested in screening. Patients should be selected for screening based on their suitability for repair if an AAA is found as well as their risk factors for AAA. The best method of recruitment for screening of those most at risk for AAA in the United States remains to be determined.     

Measuring abdominal aortic diameters in routine abdominal computed tomography scans and implications for abdominal aortic aneurysm screening

Objective

This study aimed to determine the prevalence and relevance of incidental abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) on routine abdominal computed tomography (CT) and to audit the performance of radiologists to identify and report AAA.