Fifteen-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial of ultrasonographic screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND: Long-term benefits of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) are uncertain. These are the final results of a randomized controlled screening trial for AAA in men, updating those reported previously. Benefit and compliance over a median 15-year interval were examined. METHODS: One group of men were invited for ultrasonographic AAA screening, and another group, who received standard care, acted as controls. A total of 6040 men aged 65-80 years were randomized to one of the two groups. Outcome was monitored in terms of AAA-related events (surgery or death). RESULTS: In the group invited for screening, AAA-related mortality was reduced by 11 per cent (from 1.8 to 1.6 per cent, hazard ratio 0.89) over the follow-up interval. Screening detected an AAA in 170 patients; 17 of these died from an AAA-related cause, seven of which might have been preventable. The incidence of AAA rupture after an initially normal scan increased after 10 years of follow-up, but was still low overall (0.56 per 1000 person-years). CONCLUSION: Screening with a single ultrasonography scan still conferred a benefit at 15 years, although the results were not significant for this population size. Fewer than half of the AAA-related deaths in those screened positive could be prevented. Registration number: ISRCTN 00079388 (http://www.controlled-trials.com).     

A comparison between the short term and long term benefits of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms from the Huntingdon Aneurysm screening programme.

BACKGROUND: The UK Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) showed a 44% reduction in AAA-related mortality after 4 years and predicted an increased number of deaths prevented in the longer term. We aim to compare the 5 and 13 years benefit from aneurysm screening in the Huntingdon Aneurysm screening programme. METHODS: Incidence and mortality of ruptured AAA (RAAA) after 5 and 13 years of screening in a population based aneurysm screening program. RESULTS: Five years of screening resulted in a reduction in the incidence of RAAA of 49% (95% CI: 3-74%). Nine out of 11 ruptures in the invited group did not survive (mortality 82%; 95% CI: 48-98%) compared to 38 non-survivors from 51 ruptures in the control group (mortality 75%; 95% CI: 60-86%). Five years of screening resulted in an RAAA-related mortality reduction of 45% (95% CI: -15 to 74%). After 13 years of screening the incidence of RAAA was reduced by 73% (95% CI: 58-82%). Twenty-one out of 29 ruptures in the invited group did not survive (mortality 72%; 95% CI: 53-87%) compared to 64 non-survivors from 82 ruptures in the control group (mortality 78%; 95% CI: 68-86%). Thirteen years screening resulted in a reduction of mortality from RAAA of 75% (95% CI: 58-84%). The number needed to screen to prevent one death reduced from 1380 after 5 years to 505 after 13 years. The number of elective AAA operations needed to prevent one death reduced from 6 after 5 years to 4 after 13 years. CONCLUSION: AAA screening becomes increasingly beneficial as screening continues over the longer term. Benefits continue to increase after screening has ceased.     

Hospital costs and benefits of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Results from a randomised population screening trial.

OBJECTIVES: to analyse the hospital costs and benefits of screening older males for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). MATERIALS and METHODS: in 1994 a hospital-based screening trial of 12 658 65-73-year-old males was started. AAA >5 cm were referred for surgery. The remaining AAA were offered annual scans. Those with aortic ectasia were rescreened at 5 yearly intervals. AAA-operations and hospital AAA-related deaths were researched. The costs of screening, surveillance, and treatment were also registered. RESULTS: the attendance rate was 76%; of whom 191 (4.0%) had AAA. Mean observation time was 5.13 years. Sixty in the screened and 41 in the control group were operated (p=0.06), of which 7 and 27 respectively were operated as an emergency (p<0.001), and 6 and 19 respectively died due to AAA (p=0.009). The costs per scan were 83.50 DKK, 81 400 DKK per emergency operation (71 485 DKK after screening), and 117 000 DKK per emergency operation. The cost per prevented hospital death was 67 855 DKK, equivalent to approximately life year saved approx. 7540 DKK (GBP1=12 DKK). CONCLUSION: screening appears to reduce hospital AAA mortality and to be cost-effective.     

Implications of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms on surgical workload

BACKGROUND: The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) provided strong evidence for both the clinical benefit and the cost-effectiveness of a screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in men. If a national screening programme for AAA were adopted in the UK, it would be expected to increase the elective and decrease the emergency surgical workload. METHODS: The MASS trial randomized 67,800 men aged 65-74 years to be invited to attend for ultrasonographic screening for AAA or to a control group that received no invitation. Predictions of elective and emergency surgical workload were made for a 20-year interval after the introduction of a screening programme for 65-year-old men, based on surgical rates observed in the MASS trial and national mortality statistics. RESULTS: For a district general hospital serving a population of 400,000, there was an estimated reduction from nine emergency operations per year before introduction of the screening programme to three emergency operations annually in men aged 65 years and over by the end of the 20-year interval, and an increase from 24 to 43 AAA operations overall. The corresponding estimated annual costs for all AAA surgery increased by 47 per cent, from pound 209,000 to pound 308,000. These results were not affected by changes in the underlying assumptions. CONCLUSION: The results support the expectation of very few emergency operations, and principally elective operations, being performed following the introduction of a screening programme. For a typical district general hospital, a screening programme would be expected to lead to two additional elective AAA operations per month, and to save 11 AAA-related deaths per year.     

Randomisierte Studien mit EBM-Level 1 beweisen es

Results have been published of randomised controlled studies on the screening of elderly men for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). A systematic review and meta-analysis was therefore carried out in order to be able to assess the pooled effects. A Medline search (PubMed) for randomised controlled studies was carried out using the key words “screening” and “aortic aneurysms” in English. The medium-term (3.5-5 years) and long-term (7-15 years) effects were calculated as the odds ratio with a 95% confidence interval. Four studies were identified, the “Chichester Study” (UK/England), the “Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study” (MASS) (UK/England), the “Western Australian Aneurysm Screening Study” (AUS) and the “Viborg Study” (Denmark). The analysis showed that the probability of an AAA rupture fell significantly by 47% as a result of screening, AAA-related mortality (after men over the age of 80 years were excluded) decreased by 49% and overall mortality was also reduced (OR 0.93; 95% CI: 0.90-0.96). The number of planned operations increased 3-fold (p<0.05) and the probability of emergency operations decreased by 45% (p<0.05). The long-term pooled results showed a significant reduction of 47% in the probability of both AAA rupture and AAA-related mortality and a significant decrease in overall mortality (OR 1.77; 95% CI: 0.92-0.97). Overall, 1.7 times more operations were carried out on the men invited for screening than on the controls (OR 1.77; 95% CI: 1.57; 1.99). AAA screening reduces the probability of rupture and AAA-related mortality by about 50% each and overall mortality by about 6-7%, although there are differences which might have an impact on local cost-benefit ratio of the screening.     

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.     

Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in Sweden

A large body of evidence from four international randomised controlled trials (RCT) on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening indicate that ultrasound-based screening in elderly men with a high prevalence (4?%–7?%) reduces AAA-related mortality by 40?% through early AAA detection and increased preventive elective repair and subsequently halves rupture incidence. Coinciding with the planned launch of national AAA screening programs, a dramatic change in AAA epidemiology became evident: a lower AAA prevalence in the targeted population of men and falling mortality rates, most likely related to a drop in rates of smoking, and a paradoxical increase in elective AAA repairs. These changes have called AAA screening in today’s context into question. Sweden was the first country to provide national coverage with an AAA screening program targeting 65-year-old men. The scientifically evaluated screening initiative, started in 2006, reported the lower than expected prevalence (1.7?%) in 65-year-old men early on. Cost-effectiveness seems to be maintained despite the altered epidemiology, as shown in a health-economic study. The current prevalence of AAA among Swedish women is very low, and general population-based screening of women is likely to be futile, although targeted screening among female smokers should be evaluated. Sub-aneurysmal aortas detected at screening are likely to progress to a true AAA within 5 years, indicating a need for continued surveillance in this group. Differences in screening compliance seem to be linked to socio-economic factors. The aim of this topical review is to highlight AAA screening within a Swedish context and point to areas where information is lacking and further research is needed.     

Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening: recommendations and controversies

Extensive level one evidence supports routine abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening in men aged 65 to 75 years, because AAAs are highly prevalent in this population. Physical examination is an insensitive means of detection. Ruptured AAAs are costly with respect to quality adjusted life years (QALY) lost and medical expenses. Large scale, randomized trials have demonstrated that AAA screening reduces all AAA-related mortality in the screened population and is cost-effective in mid-term follow-up. AAA screening by ultrasound has many advantages over other accepted medical screening programs in its simplicity in structure and the availability of an inexpensive, portable, and reliable means of screening. Additionally, AAA screening almost entirely avoids the negative consequences associated with other screening programs, including the adverse psychological effects and medical costs associated with false-positive examination results. There are subgroups of at-risk women who might benefit from AAA screening, and this issue should be further studied.     

Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms in men: a Canadian perspective using Monte Carlo–based estimates

Objective

Recently generated randomized screening trial data have provided good evidence in favour of routine screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) to reduce AAA-related deaths in men aged 65 years and older. We developed an economic model that assessed the incremental cost–utility of AAA screening to help decision makers judge the relevance of a national screening program in Canada.

Methods

We constructed a 14 health state Markov model comparing 2 cohorts of 65-year-old men, where the first cohort was invited to attend screening for AAA using ultrasonography (US) and the second cohort followed the current practice of opportunistic detection. Lifetime outcomes included the life-years gained, AAA rupture avoided, AAA-related mortality, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs. Transition probabilities were derived from a systematic review of the literature, and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis was carried out to examine the effect of joint uncertainty in the variables of our analysis. The perspective adopted was that of the health care provider.

Results

Invitations to attend screening produced an undiscounted gain in life expectancy of 0.049 years and a gain in discounted QALY of 0.019 for an estimated incremental lifetime cost of CAN$118. The estimated incremental cost–utility ratio was CAN$6194 per QALY gained (95% confidence interval [CI] 1892–10 837). The numbers needed to invite to attend screening, and the numbers needed to screen to prevent 1 AAA-related death were 187 (95% CI 130–292) and 137 (95% CI 85–213), respectively. The acceptability curve showed a greater than 95% probability of the program''s being cost-effective, and the model was robust to changes in the values of key parameters within plausible ranges.

Conclusion

Our results support the economic viability of a national screening program for men reaching 65 years of age in Canada. More clinical studies are needed to define the role of screening in subgroups at high risk, especially in the female population.     

Relatively high pulmonary and cardiovascular mortality rates in screening-detected aneurysmal patients without previous hospital admissions.

BACKGROUND: Men with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) who are not hospitalised for pulmonary and cardiovascular diseases may have higher mortality due to such disorders. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Previous discharge diagnoses and causes of death were collected for 4,816 men aged 64-73 years attending mass screening for AAA. Of these, 191 (4%) had an AAA. Overall, cardiovascular- and pulmonary-disease-specific mortality was compared for men with and without AAA stratified for earlier pulmonary or cardiovascular hospitalisations by Cox's proportional hazards regression while adjusting for age. Absolute risk differences after five years were calculated by life table analysis. RESULTS: The median observation time was 63 months. 362 men died from cardiovascular causes other than AAA, and 144 died from pulmonary causes. The cardiovascular mortality was significantly higher in aneurysm patients without previous related hospitalisation (HR=4.35, 95% CI: 2.73-6.94, P<0.001) with an absolute mortality difference after 5 years of 16.3% (95% CI: 10.2-22.5%). Pulmonary-cause mortality was higher among men with AAA both with and without previous hospitalisation for pulmonary causes (HR=3.05; 95% CI: 1.19-7.83, P=0.020, and HR=3.29; 95% CI: 1.78-6.08, P<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Men with AAA who had not been hospitalised for cardiovascular diseases have more than four times higher cardiovascular mortality. Studies of cohorts being offered relevant prophylaxis may clarify the potential benefits of general preventive actions.     

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.     

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.     

Effectiveness and cost of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: results of a population screening program

OBJECTIVES: We undertook this study to calculate the cost per life-year gained in the first round of a screening program for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and to estimate the costs in a subsequent round. METHODS: This was an intervention study, with follow-up for ruptured aneurysms. Men older than 50 years were screened for asymptomatic AAA. Outcome measures included cost per life-year saved and number of men needed to be screened to save one life. RESULTS: The incidence of ruptured AAA was 2.6 per 10,000 person- years in the screening group and 7.1 per 10,000 person-years in the control group. Screening is estimated to have prevented 10.8 ruptured AAA and 8 deaths per year, gaining 51 life-years per year for the study population, and to have reduced the incidence of ruptured AAA by 64% (95% CI, 42%-77%). Each life-year gained during the first screening round cost $1107. To save one life, 1000 men need to be screened and 5 elective operations performed. We predict that a second round of screening can be cost neutral. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of screening for AAA compares favorably with screening programs for other disorders in adults.     

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.     

Anatomic predictors for late mortality after standard endovascular aneurysm repair

ObjectiveAbdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) management involves a decision process that takes into account anatomic characteristics, surgical risks, patients' preferences, and expected survival. Whereas larger AAA diameter has been associated with increased mortality after both standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open repair, it is unclear whether survival after EVAR is influenced by other anatomic characteristics. The purpose of this study was to determine the importance of baseline anatomic features on survival after EVAR.MethodsAll patients treated at a tertiary teaching center with EVAR for intact standard infrarenal AAA from 2000 to 2014 were included. The civil data registry was queried to determine survival status; causes of death were obtained from death certificates. The primary study end point was to determine the impact of baseline morphologic features on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality after EVAR.ResultsThis study included 404 EVAR patients (12.1% women; mean age, 73 years) with a median follow-up of 5.8 years (interquartile range, 3.1-7.4 years). The 5- and 10-year overall survival rates for the entire population after EVAR were 70% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66%-75%) and 43% (95% CI, 37%-50%), respectively. Only AAA diameter >70 mm (hazard ratio [HR], 1.75; 95% CI, 1.20-3.56) was identified as an independent anatomic predictor of all-cause mortality. Death due to cardiovascular causes occurred in 60 (38.5%) patients. Aneurysm-related mortality was responsible for six of the cardiovascular-related deaths. In multivariable analysis, both neck diameter ≥30 mm (HR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.05-4.43) and AAA diameter >70 mm (HR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.34-4.46) were identified as independent morphologic risk factors for cardiovascular mortality, whereas >25% circumferential neck thrombus (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.77) was protective.ConclusionsThis study suggests that patients with AAA diameters >70 mm are at increased risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. In addition, patients with infrarenal neck diameters ≥30 mm have a greater risk of cardiovascular mortality, although AAA-related deaths were not more frequent in this group of patients. Consequently, a more aggressive management of cardiovascular medical comorbidities may be warranted to improve survival after standard EVAR in these patients.     

Abdominal aortic aneurysm in women: prevalence, risk factors, and implications for screening

OBJECTIVE: Accurate data regarding the prevalence and associated risk factors for aneurysmal disease is essential when determining the appropriateness of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Although women are poorly represented in most large studies of AAA prevalence, the US Preventative Services Task Force recently recommended against primary screening for AAA in women. The purpose of this analysis was to define the prevalence and risk factors associated with the development of AAA in women. METHODS: A free duplex ultrasound screening was offered to men and women with cardiovascular risk factors or a family history of AAA. Patients were recruited through advertising at local screening centers and screenings were performed between 2004 and 2006. Demographic information and cardiovascular and aneurysmal disease risk factors were obtained for each patient through a questionnaire. A total of 17,540 subjects were screened for AAA, including 10,012 women (mean age 69.6 years) and 7528 men (mean age 70.0 years). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed on the subset of women that were screened to determine risk factors for and prevalence of AAA. RESULTS: Seventy-four aneurysms were detected in women (including four aneurysms >5 cm diameter and 70 aneurysms 3 to 5 cm diameter) while 291 were detected in men, resulting in prevalence rates of 0.7% and 3.9%, respectively. Increasing age (odds ratio [OR]= 4.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.98 to 10.54, P < .0001), history of tobacco use (OR = 3.29, 95% CI 1.86 to 5.80, P < .0001), and cardiovascular disease (OR= 3.57, 95% CI 2.19 to 5.84, P < .0001) were independently associated with AAA in women on univariate and multivariable analysis. Women with multiple atherosclerotic risk factors were more commonly found to have AAAs and had a prevalence rate of AAA as high as 6.4%. CONCLUSION: Although the medical literature suggests a low prevalence rate of AAA in women in the general population, specific risk factors are associated with the development of AAA, and subgroups of women can be identified that are at a substantially increased risk of aneurysmal disease. In particular, elevated rates of AAA were found among women of advanced age (> or =65 years) with a history of smoking or heart disease. These data support the notion that women with such risk factors should be considered for AAA screening.     

Selective screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm among patients referred to the vascular laboratory.

BACKGROUND: Patients examined for peripheral arterial disease at the vascular laboratory, Uppsala University Hospital, are since 1993 screened for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). The objective of this study was to study the prevalence of AAA found at this selective high-risk screening. METHODS: All files in the vascular laboratory were retrospectively reviewed. Of 9296 persons examined with arterial duplex between 1993 and October 2005, 5924 were screened for AAA. The primary target vessel was the carotid arteries in 3772 subjects, the renal arteries in 1529 subjects and the lower extremity arteries in 1457 subjects. An AAA was defined as an infrarenal aortic diameter >/=30mm. RESULTS: 179 subjects were found to have an AAA. In a logistic regression model male gender, age and duplex-verified arterial stenosis were independently associated with AAA (odds ratio 3.2, 2.0/20 years and 2.0, respectively, p<0.001). In men <60 years the AAA prevalence was 0.9% (95% confidence interval 0.2-1.6%) when arterial stenosis was absent and 1.5% (0.0-3.2%) when present. In men >/=60 years the AAA prevalence was 4.0% (3.0-5.1%) when no arterial stenosis was found and 7.3% (5.7-8.9%) when found. The corresponding prevalences in women were 0%, 0%, 1.2% (0.5-1.8%), and 3.1% (1.9-4.3%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Men >/=60 years referred for arterial examination have a significant risk of having an AAA while only women >/=65 years with a duplex verified arterial stenosis have a sufficient risk of having an AAA. Studies to evaluate the benefit of selective high-risk screening are warranted.     

Decision-analytical model with lifetime estimation of costs and health outcomes for one-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in 65-year-old men

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) causes about 2 per cent of all deaths in men over the age of 65 years. A major improvement in operative mortality would have little impact on total mortality, so screening for AAA has been recommended as a solution. The cost-effectiveness of a programme that invited 65-year-old men for ultrasonographic screening was compared with current clinical practice in a decision-analytical model. METHODS: In a probabilistic Markov model, costs and health outcomes of a screening programme and current clinical practice were simulated over a lifetime perspective. To populate the model with the best available evidence, data from published papers, vascular databases and primary research were used. RESULTS: The results of the base-case analysis showed that the incremental cost per gained life-year for a screening programme compared with current practice was 7760, and that for a quality-adjusted life-year was 9700. The probability of screening being cost-effective was high. CONCLUSION: A financially and practically feasible screening programme for AAA, in which men are invited for ultrasonography in the year in which they turn 65, appears to yield positive health outcomes at a reasonable cost.     

Final follow‐up of the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening

Background:

The long‐term effects of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening were investigated in extended follow‐up from the UK Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial.

Methods:

A population‐based sample of men aged 65–74 years were randomized individually to invitation to ultrasound screening (invited group) or to a control group not offered screening. Patients with an AAA (3·0 cm or larger) detected at screening underwent surveillance and were offered surgery after predefined criteria had been met. Cause‐specific mortality data were analysed using Cox regression.

Results:

Some 67 770 men were enrolled in the study. Over 13 years, there were 224 AAA‐related deaths in the invited group and 381 in the control group, a 42 (95 per cent confidence interval 31 to 51) per cent reduction. There was no evidence of effect on other causes of death, but there was an overall reduction in all‐cause mortality of 3 (1 to 5) per cent. The degree of benefit seen in earlier years of follow‐up was slightly diminished by the occurrence of AAA ruptures in those with an aorta originally screened normal. About half of these ruptures had a baseline aortic diameter in the range 2·5–2·9 cm. It was estimated that 216 men need to be invited to screening to save one death over the next 13 years.

Conclusion:

Screening resulted in a reduction in all‐cause mortality, and the benefit in AAA‐related mortality continued to accumulate throughout follow‐up. Registration number: ISRCTN37381646 ( http://www.controlled‐trials.com ). Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The National Health Service Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme in England

Background

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is responsible for the premature death of more than 4,000 men in England and Wales every year. AAAs are usually asymptomatic before they rupture, yet they are easily detected by a simple abdominal ultrasound scan.

Methods

This paper reviews the evidence for, and implementation of, a national AAA population screening programme in England.

Results

Population screening of 65-year-old men can reassure most that they will not get an AAA, but it can also detect a small number of men with a large AAA at immediate risk of rupture, and a larger number of men with a small or medium AAA at minimal immediate risk, but who may be offered ongoing ultrasound surveillance. Population screening of men aged 65–74 has a sound evidence base, and reduces subsequent AAA-related mortality for at least 13 years by up to 50?%. Some Western countries, including the UK, have adopted population screening using public funding, whereas others remain to be convinced, and continue to collate research. The epidemiology of AAA is changing quickly, with the prevalence in 65-year-old men decreasing rapidly as smoking habits change and more medical treatments are used to manage cardiovascular risk factors.

Conclusion

As evidence on the natural history of AAA continues to emerge, new and ongoing programmes will need to be responsive and adapt. The AAA screening programme of the future will evolve using emerging clinical and cost-effectiveness data.