Growth rates of subclinical abdominal aortic aneurysms--implications for review and rescreening programmes

One hundred and six patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) of 2.5 to 3.9 cm in anteroposterior diameter were reexamined by ultrasound every 6 months for up to 3 years after diagnosis. Annual growth rates were 0.11 cm +/- 0.03 (mean +/- SE) for AAAs 2.5 to 2.9 cm and 0.29 cm +/- 0.08 for AAAs 3.5 to 3.9 cm (P = 0.002). In 73 patients (69%) the annual rate of increase in diameter was 0.2 cm or less and only 12 aneurysms (11%) grew at more than 0.5 cm per annum. We conclude that: (1) for AAAs less than 4.0 cm diameter remeasurement more often than every 6 months is unnecessary; (2) interval screening (rescreening) for AAAs more frequently than 5 yearly is unlikely to detect sufficient clinically significant aneurysms to be worthwhile.     

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.)     

Prognosis of patients turned down for conventional abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the endovascular and sonographic era: Szilagyi revisited?

PURPOSE: The United Kingdom Small Aneurysm study has demonstrated the low risk of rupture in aneurysms less than 5.5 cm in diameter. With the advent of endoluminal techniques, patients considered unfit to undergo laparotomy are now considered for endovascular repair. However, the natural history of aneurysms larger than 5.5 cm remains uncertain, especially when severe comorbidity is present. In our center, we prospectively maintain records of all patients for whom elective aneurysm surgery was refused. This study documented the outcome of all patients referred with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) larger than 5.5 cm in diameter who were turned down for elective open repair and determined the cause of death and risk of rupture in all patients. METHODS: Details of all patients with AAAs from January 5, 1989, to January 5, 1999, were recorded, and demographic details on all patients with AAAs larger than 5.5 cm were collected. Copies of death certificates were obtained from the Office of National Statistics, local in-hospital patient records, and general practitioner records. Results of postmortem examinations were also obtained. Aneurysms were stratified according to their size at presentation (5.5-5.9 cm, 6.0-7.0 cm, and > 7.0 cm), and the reasons no intervention was made were documented. RESULTS: A total of 106 patients were turned down for elective aneurysm surgery in the 10-year period (10.6 per year). The mean age of the patients was 78.4 years (SD, 7.4), and 70 were men and 36 were women. At the end of the study, 76 patients (71.7%) had died. Overall, the 3-year survival rate was 17%. Patients with AAAs larger than 7.0 cm lived a median of 9 months. A ruptured aneurysm was certified as a cause of death in 36% of the patients with an AAA of 5.5 to 5.9 cm, in 50% of the patients with an AAA of 6 to 7.0 cm, and 55% of the patients with an AAA larger than 7.0 cm. Reasons given for not intervening were patient refusal (31 cases), the patient being "unfit for surgery" (18 cases), the "advanced age" of the patient (18 cases), cardiac disease (9 cases), cancer (9 cases), respiratory disease (6 cases), and other (15 cases). CONCLUSION: Although we recognize the problems with death certification, we found that rupture was a significant cause of death in patients with an untreated AAA that was larger than 5.5 cm. Although little difference in outcome was observed in aneurysms in the 5.5 to 7.0 cm size range, patients with an AAA that was larger than 7.0 cm seemed to have a much poorer prognosis.     

Randomized double-blind controlled trial of roxithromycin for prevention of abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion

BACKGROUND: Macrolide treatment has been reported to lower the risk of recurrent ischaemic heart disease. The influence of macrolides on the expansion rate of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) remains unknown. The aim was to investigate the effect of roxithromycin on the expansion rate of small AAAs. METHODS: A total of 92 subjects with a small AAA were recruited from two populations. One population consisted of 6339 men aged 65-73 years who were offered a hospital-based mass screening programme for AAA. From this population 66 subjects were recruited. The remaining 26 men were recruited from among 49 subjects diagnosed at interval screening for an initial aortic diameter between 25 and 29 mm. Subjects were randomized to receive either oral roxithromycin 300 mg once daily for 28 days or matching placebo, and followed for a mean of 1.5 years. RESULTS: During the first year the mean annual expansion rate of AAAs was reduced by 44 [corrected] per cent in the intervention group (1.56 mm per year), compared with 2.80 mm per year following placebo (P = 0.02). During the second year the difference was only 5 per cent [corrected]. Multiple linear regression analysis showed that roxithromycin treatment and initial AAA size were significantly related to AAA expansion when adjusted for smoking, diastolic blood pressure and immunoglobulin A level of 20 or more [corrected]. Logistic regression analysis confirmed a significant difference in expansion rates above 2 mm annually between the intervention and placebo groups: odds ratio = 0.09 (95 per cent confidence interval 0.01-0.83) [corrected]. CONCLUSION: In comparison to placebo, roxithromycin 300 mg daily for 4 weeks reduced the expansion rate of AAAs.     

Variables that affect the expansion rate and outcome of small abdominal aortic aneurysms

Seventy-three patients with small (less than 6 cm in diameter) abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) were selected for nonoperative management and followed up with sequential ultrasound size measurements. Fifty-four men and 19 women, 51 to 89 years of age (mean 70 years), had an initial mean AAA size of 4.1 cm (anteroposterior) x 4.3 cm (lateral) diameter, with a calculated elliptic cross-sectional area of 14.3 cm2. After a mean of 37 months of follow-up, AAA area increased at a mean rate of 20% per year (3 cm2 yr; 0.4 to 0.5 cm/yr diameter). Expansion rate was not affected by initial aneurysm size. During follow-up, only 3 patients (4%) required urgent operation (1 died), 26 patients (36%) died of non-AAA causes, and 26 patients (36%) underwent elective AAA repair because of progressive size increase (1 died). Elective operations were performed at the rate of 10% per year, when mean AAA size had increased to 22 cm2 (5.1 cm in diameter). Multiple regression analysis of clinical parameters available at presentation indicated that subsequent elective AAA repair was predicted by younger age at diagnosis and larger initial aneurysm size. As anticipated, patients who underwent surgery had more rapid aneurysm expansion (5.3 cm2/yr) compared with patients who did not undergo surgery (1.6 cm2/yr; p less than 0.05). This difference was caused by more rapid expansion during later follow-up intervals among patients selected for operation and was not predicted by the change in aneurysm size observed during initial ultrasonographic follow-up. Final aneurysm size was predicted by initial size, duration of follow-up, and both systolic and diastolic pressure.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Should endovascular surgery lower the threshold for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms?

PURPOSE: Because endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) is less invasive, some investigators have suggested that this increasingly popular technique should broaden the indications for elective AAA repair. The purpose of this study was to calculate quality-adjusted life expectancy rates after endovascular and open AAA repair and to estimate the optimal diameter for elective AAA repair in hypothetical cohorts of patients at average risk and at high risk. METHODS: A Markov decision analysis model was used in this study. Assumptions were made on the basis of published reports and included the following: (1) the annual rupture rate is a continuous function of the AAA diameter (0% for <4 cm, 1% for 4.5 cm, 11% for 5.5 cm, and 26% for 6.5 cm); (2) the operative mortality rate is 1% for endovascular repair (excluding the risk of conversion to open repair) and 3.5% for open repair at age 70 years; and (3) immediate endovascular-to-open conversion risk is 5%, and late conversion rate is 1% per year. The main outcome measure in this study was the benefit of AAA repair in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The optimal threshold size (the AAA diameter at which elective repair maximizes benefit) was measured in centimeters. RESULTS: The benefit of endovascular repair is consistently greater than that of open repair, but the additional benefit is small-0.1 to 0.4 QALYs. For men in average health with gradually enlarging AAAs with initial diameters of 4 cm, endovascular surgery reduces the optimal threshold diameter by very little: from 4.6 to 4.6 cm (no change) at age 60 years, from 4.8 to 4.7 cm at age 70 years, and from 5.1 to 4.9 cm at age 80 years. For older men in poor health, endovascular surgery reduces the optimal threshold diameter substantially (8.1 to 5.7 cm at age 80 years), but the benefit of repair in this population is small (0.2 QALYs). CONCLUSION: For most patients, the indications for AAA repair are changed very little by the introduction of endovascular surgery. Only for older patients in poor health does endovascular surgery substantially lower the optimal threshold diameter for elective AAA repair.     

Natural history of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm

Factors determining the outcome for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) were analysed in a retrospective population-based study of 187 consecutively diagnosed AAAs at one hospital during a 9-year period. All aneurysms were diagnosed by ultrasound, and those cases that were not primarily operated upon, were followed by repeat ultrasound examinations. An expansion rate of more than 0.4 cm/year was seen in 27% of the aneurysms and a tendency towards a higher rate of expansion could be seen with larger lesions. The overall cumulative rupture rate was 12% at 5 years. For patients with small (less than 5 cm) aneurysms it was 2.5% at 7 years, and no aneurysm could definitively be shown to be smaller than 5 cm at the time of rupture. The rupture risk was significantly higher (28% at 3 years) for larger aneurysms (greater than or equal to 5 cm). The only reliable predictor for rupture was aneurysm size. The overall cumulative survival was 51% at 5 years. Patients with large aneurysms did not have a significantly shorter survival although a tendency for this to be the case was found. There was a significant difference between the proportion of deaths caused by aneurysm rupture in patients with small aneurysms when compared to those with large aneurysms, 5.5 and 53%, respectively. The expansion rate for AAA was highly individual and aneurysm diameter was the only recognisable predictor of rupture. The rupture rate for AAAs smaller than 5 cm was lower than previously reported.     

Selective management of abdominal aortic aneurysms in a prospective measurement program

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to clarify the treatment of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) less than 5 cm in diameter and those believed to be unfit for operation with AAAs 5 cm diameter or greater.Methods: Four hundred ninety two patients with AAAs less than 5 cm when first seen were entered in a prospective measurement program by ultrasonography or computed tomography scan (exclusively after 1988) every 6 months. A decision regarding operative fitness was made when the AAA was 5 cm. Patients then underwent operation if fit or continued follow-up if their AAA was larger than 5 cm but they were unfit. A further group of 91 patients with aneurysms 5 cm or greater when first seen but unfit for repair were entered in the prospective measurement program.Results: In the group with AAAs less than 5 cm at entry, operation was performed in 201 patients as a result of increase in AAA size to 5 cm or greater (157), AAA expansion of more than 0.5 cm in 6 months (24), or for other reasons (20). Of those with AAAs smaller than 5 cm at entry, 291 have not undergone operation at a mean follow-up of 42 months. Expansion was significantly related to aneurysm size at entry and was highest in the 4.5 to 4.9 cm group at 0.7 cm/year. In the group of patients deemed unfit for operation with 5 cm AAAs [as a graduate of the less than 5 cm group at entry (85 patients) or first seen with AAA greater than 5 cm (91 patients)], 10 ruptures have occurred. Of these patients with ruptured AAAs, six had AAAs between 5.0 and 5.6 cm.Conclusions: Because of the risk of rupture demonstrated in our series in AAAs 5 cm or slightly greater and the progressive increase in expansion to a mean of 0.7 cm/year in those AAAs between 4.5 and 4.9 cm at entry, recommendation for elective operation in patients with AAAs between 4.5 and 5.0 cm should be strongly considered in a fit patient. (J VASC SURG1996;23:213-22.)     

Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair: long-term outcome measures in patients at high-risk for open surgery

PURPOSE: The study was conducted to determine the outcome in the United States after endovascular repair (EVAR) of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in patients at high-risk for open surgery by using independently audited, high-compliance, chart-verified data sets, and to compare those results with open surgery. METHODS: High-risk was defined to match a recent European trial (EVAR2) and included age of > or =60 years with aneurysm size of > or =5.5 cm, plus at least one cardiac, pulmonary, or renal comorbidity. Data from five multicenter investigational device exemption clinical trials leading to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval were analyzed. Of 2216 EVAR patients, 565 met the high-risk criteria. Of 342 surgical controls (OPEN), 61 met high-risk criteria. Primary outcome comparisons included AAA-related death, all-cause death, and aneurysm rupture. Secondary measures were endoleak, AAA sac enlargement, and migration. RESULTS: Average age of the high-risk EVAR subset was 76 +/- 7 years vs 74 +/- 6 years OPEN (P = 0.07), mean EVAR AAA size was 6.4 +/- 0.8 cm vs 6.6 +/- 1.0 cm OPEN (P = .33), and average EVAR follow-up was 2.7 years vs 2.5 years OPEN. The 30-day operative mortality was 2.9% in EVAR vs 5.1% in OPEN (P = .32). The AAA-related death rate after EVAR was 3.0% at 1 year and 4.2% at 4 years compared with 5.1% at both time points after OPEN (P = .58). Overall survival at 4 years after EVAR was 56% vs 66% in OPEN (P = .23). After treatment, EVAR successfully prevented rupture in 99.5% at 1 year and in 97.2% at 4 years. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of large infrarenal AAAs in anatomically suited high-surgical-risk patients using FDA-approved devices in the United States is safe and provides lasting protection from AAA-related mortality. EVAR mortality remained comparable with OPEN up to 4 years. The decision to treat AAAs in patients with advanced age and significant comorbidities must be individualized and carefully considered, but repair provides excellent protection from AAA-related death.     

Growth of thrombus may be a better predictor of rupture than diameter in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms.

OBJECTIVES: to investigate the relationships between diameter, surface and thrombus area in abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) <5 cm. METHODS AND MATERIAL: sixty-seven patients with AAA underwent at least 2 CT examinations. At the point of maximal diameter, surface area and thrombus area were calculated and related to rupture, or impending rupture, during follow-up. RESULTS: the mean increase in measured diameter, surface area and thrombus area were 3.4 mm, 1.9 cm(2)and 1.7 cm(2)per year respectively. Patients with AAA >4 cm and whose thrombus area increased >1.5 cm(2)/year were more likely to rupture (6/24 vs 1/23). CONCLUSIONS: a rapid increase of thrombus area may be a better predictor of AAA rupture than increase in maximal diameter.     

The natural history of abdominal aortic aneurysms

This study examines the rate of expansion of abdominal aortic aneurysms and the risk of rupture in relation to their size. To assess these variables, we conducted a prospective study of 300 consecutive patients who presented over a 6-year interval with abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) that were initially managed nonoperatively. The mean age of the patients was 70.4 years, and 211 (70%) were men. The mean initial aneurysm diameter was 4.1 cm. Among the 208 patients who underwent more than one ultrasound or computed tomographic (CT) scan, the diameter of the aneurysm increased by a median of 0.3 cm per year. The 6-year cumulative incidence of rupture was 1% and 2% among patients with aneurysms less than 4.0 cm and 4.0 to 4.9 cm in diameter, respectively (p greater than 0.05). In comparison, the 6-year cumulative incidence of rupture was 20% among patients with aneurysms greater than 5.0 cm in diameter (p less than 0.004). We conclude that (1) abdominal aortic aneurysms expand at a median rate of 0.3 cm per year; and (2) the risk of rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms less than 5.0 cm is substantially lower than the risk of rupture of aneurysms 5.0 cm or more in diameter.     

Prediction of rupture risk in abdominal aortic aneurysm during observation: wall stress versus diameter

OBJECTIVES: We previously showed that peak abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) wall stress calculated for aneurysms in vivo is higher at rupture than at elective repair. The purpose of this study was to analyze rupture risk over time in patients under observation. METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) scans were analyzed for patients with AAA when observation was planned for at least 6 months. AAA wall stress distribution was computationally determined in vivo with CT data, three-dimensional computer modeling, finite element analysis (nonlinear hyperelastic model depicting aneurysm wall behavior), and blood pressure during observation. RESULTS: Analysis included 103 patients and 159 CT scans (mean follow-up, 14 +/- 2 months per CT). Forty-two patients were observed with no intervention for at least 1 year (mean follow-up, 28 +/- 3 months). Elective repair was performed within 1 year in 39 patients, and emergent repair was performed in 22 patients (mean, 6 +/- 1 month after CT) for rupture (n = 14) or acute severe pain. Significant differences were found for initial diameter (observation, 4.9 +/-.1 cm; elective repair, 5.9 +/-.1 cm; emergent repair, 6.1 +/-.2 cm; P <.0001) and initial peak wall stress (38 +/- 1 N/cm(2), 42 +/- 2 n/cm(2), 58 +/- 4 N/cm(2), respectively; P <.0001), but peak wall stress appeared to better differentiate patients who later required emergent repair (elective vs emergent repair: diameter, 3% difference, P =.5; stress, 38% difference, P <.0001). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for predicting rupture were better for peak wall stress (sensitivity, 94%; specificity,81%; accuracy, 85% [with 44 N/cm(2) threshold]) than for diameter (81%, 70%, 73%, respectively [with optimal 5.5 cm threshold). With proportional hazards analysis, peak wall stress (relative risk, 25x) and gender (relative risk, 3x) were the only significant independent predictors of rupture. CONCLUSIONS: For AAAs under observation, peak AAA wall stress seems superior to diameter in differentiating patients who will experience catastrophic outcome. Elevated wall stress associated with rupture is not simply an acute event near the time of rupture.     

A 14-year experience with 6 cm as a criterion for surgical treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear when to recommend operation for an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). This study examined a prospective series of patients for whom standard criteria were applied. METHODS: Some 584 consecutive patients with an AAA of diameter 3 cm or greater detected by ultrasonographic screening have been observed for up to 14 years. Repeat ultrasonographic examinations have been performed at intervals. Surgery was not considered unless the aneurysm measured 6 cm in diameter, expanded at a rate equivalent to at least 1 cm per year, caused the patient symptoms, or an iliac aneurysm was present that required treatment. RESULTS: Operation was performed on 127 patients; the majority (80; 63 per cent) had an aneurysm that reached 6 cm in diameter. Use of the above criteria prevented rupture in all but 24 (4 per cent) of the 584 patients over the 14-year interval. Of these 24 patients, 11 were unfit for planned surgery and eight declined operation or follow-up. Rupture in the five remaining patients (1 per cent) who were available for treatment compared favourably with the reported 30-day mortality rate for elective surgical treatment of 1.4-12 per cent. CONCLUSION: Repeated observation is preferable to surgical intervention until an aortic aneurysm measures 6 cm in diameter, expands by 1 cm per annum or causes symptoms. Presented as a poster to the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Society for Vascular Surgery, San Diego, California, USA, June 1998     

Ultrasound surveillance of ectatic abdominal aortas

INTRODUCTION

Some studies have considered abdominal aortas of 2.6–2.9 cm diameter (ectatic aortas) at age 65 years as being abnormal and have recommended surveillance, whereas others have considered these normal and surveillance unnecessary. It is, therefore, not clear how to manage patients with an initial aortic diameter between 2.6–2.9 cm detected at screening. The aim of this study was to evaluate growth rates of ectatic aortas detected on initial ultrasound screening to determine if any developed into clinically significant abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs; > 5.0 cm) and clarify the appropriate surveillance intervals for these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Data were obtained from a prospective AAA screening programme which commenced in 1992. The group of patients with initial aortic diameters of 2.6–2.9 cm with a minimum of 1-year follow-up were included in this study (Group 2). This was further divided into two subgroups (Groups 3a and 3b) based on a minimum follow-up interval obtained from outcome analysis. Mean growth rate was calculated as change in aortic diameter with time. The comparison of growth rates in Groups 3a and 3b was performed using the t-test. The number and proportion of AAAs that expanded to ≥ 3.0 cm and ≥ 5.0 cm in diameter were also calculated.

RESULTS

Out of 999 patients with AAA ≥ 2.6 cm with minimum 1-year follow-up, 358 (36%) were classified as ectatic aortas (2.6–2.9 cm) at initial ultrasound screening with the mean growth rate of 1.69 mm/year (95% CI, 1.56–1.82 mm/year) with a mean follow-up of 5.4 years. Of these 358 ectatic aortas, 314 (88%) expanded into ≥ 3.0 cm, 45 (13%) expanded to ≥ 5.0 cm and only 8 (2%) expanded to ≥ 5.5 cm over a mean follow-up of 5.4 years (range, 1–14 years). No ectatic aortas expanded to ≥ 5.0 cm within the first 4 years of surveillance. Therefore, the minimum follow-up interval was set at 4 years and this threshold was then used for further analysis. The mean growth rate in Group 3a (< 5.0 cm at last scan) was 1.33 mm/year (95% CI, 1.23–1.44 mm/year) with a mean follow-up of 7 years compared to Group 3b (≥ 5.0 cm at last scan) with the mean growth rate of 3.33 mm/year (95% CI 3.05–3.61 mm/year) and a mean follow-up of 8 years. The comparison of mean growth rates between Groups 3a and 3b is statistically significant (t-test; T = 13.00; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

One-third of patients undergoing AAA screening will have ectatic aortas (2.6–2.9 cm) and at least 13% of these will expand to a size of ≥ 5.0 cm over a follow-up of 4–14 years. A threshold diameter of 2.6 cm for defining AAAs in a screening programme is recommended and ectatic aortas detected at age 65 years can be re-screened at 4 years after the initial scan. A statistically significant difference was found in the growth rates of ectatic aortas with minimum 4 years follow-up, expanding to ≥ 5.0 cm compared to those less than 5.0 cm at last surveillance scan. Further studies are required to test the hypothesis of whether growth rate over the first 4 years of surveillance will identify those who are most likely to expand to a clinically significant size (> 5.0 cm).     

Endovascular aneurysm repair at 5 years: does aneurysm diameter predict outcome?

OBJECTIVE: The appropriate size threshold for endovascular repair of small abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is unclear. We studied the outcome of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) as a function of preoperative aneurysm diameter to determine the relationship between aneurysm size and long-term outcome of endovascular repair. METHODS: We reviewed the results of 923 patients treated in a prospective, multicenter clinical trial of EVAR. Small aneurysms were defined according to two size thresholds of 5.5 cm and 5.0 cm. Two-way analysis was used to compare patients with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm, n = 441) to patients with large aneurysms (> or =5.5 cm, n = 482). An ordered three-way analysis was used to compare patients with small AAA (<5.0 cm, n = 145), medium AAA (5.0 to 5.9 cm, n = 461), and large AAA (> or =6.0 cm, n = 317). The primary outcome measures of rupture, AAA-related death, surgical conversion, secondary intervention, and survival were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimates at 5 years. RESULTS: Median aneurysm size was 5.5 cm. The two-way comparison showed that 5 years after EVAR, patients with small aneurysms (<5.5 cm) had a lower AAA-related death rate (1% vs 6%, P = .006), a higher survival rate (69% vs 57%, P = .0002), and a lower secondary intervention rate (25% vs 32%, P = .03) than patients with large aneurysms (> or =5.5 cm). Three-way analysis revealed that patients with small AAAs (<5.0 cm) were younger (P < .0001) and were more likely to have a family history of aneurysm (P < .05), prior coronary intervention (P = .003), and peripheral occlusive disease (P = .008) than patients with larger AAAs. Patients with smaller AAAs also had more favorable aortic neck anatomy (P < .004). Patients with large AAAs were older (P < .0001), had higher operative risk (P = .01), and were more likely to have chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (P = .005), obesity (P = .03), and congestive heart failure (P = .004). At 5 years, patients with small AAAs had better outcomes, with 100% freedom from rupture vs 97% for medium AAAs and 93% for large AAAs (P = .02), 99% freedom from AAA-related death vs 97% for medium AAAs and 92% for large AAAs (P = .02) and 98% freedom from conversion vs 92% for medium AAAs and 89% for large AAAs (P = .01). Survival was significantly improved in small (69%) and medium AAAs (68%) compared to large AAAs (51%, P < .0001). Multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling revealed that aneurysm size was a significant independent predictor of rupture (P = .04; hazard ratio [HR], 2.195), AAA-related death (P = .03; HR, 2.007), surgical conversion (P = .007; HR, 1.827), and survival (P = .001; HR, 1.351). There were no significant differences in secondary intervention, endoleak, or migration rates between small, medium, and large AAAs. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative aneurysm size is an important determinant of long-term outcome following endovascular repair. Patients with small AAAs (<5.0 cm) are more favorable candidates for EVAR and have the best long-term outcomes, with 99% freedom from AAA death at 5 years. Patients with large AAAs (> or =6.0 cm) have shorter life expectancy and have a higher risk of rupture, surgical conversion, and aneurysm-related death following EVAR compared to patients with smaller aneurysms. Nonetheless, 92% of patients with large AAAs are protected from AAA-related death at 5 years. Patients with AAAs of intermediate size (5 to 6 cm) represent most of the patients treated with EVAR and have a 97% freedom from AAA-related death at 5 years.     

Expansion rates and outcomes for the 3.0-cm to the 3.9-cm infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed for the determination of the expansion rates and outcomes and for recommendations for the surveillance of the 3.0-cm to 3.9-cm abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). DESIGN: The study was observational with data from patients screened with ultrasound scanning for AAA at five Veterans Affairs Medical Centers for enrollment in the Aneurysm Detection and Management Trial. The eligibility requirements included: AAA from 3.0 cm to 3.9 cm in diameter and at least one repeat ultrasound scan more than 90 days after the initial screening. Patients also completed a questionnaire for demographic data and the determination of the presence of risk factors associated with AAA. The study endpoints included: 1, both mean and median expansion rates; 2, moderate expansion (>4 mm/year); 3, no expansion; 4, all causes of death; 5, AAA rupture; 6, expansion to 4 cm or more; 7, expansion to 5.0 cm or more; and 8, operative repair. RESULTS: Ultrasound scan screening results identified 1445 patients with 3.0-cm to 3.9-cm AAAs. Seven hundred ninety men met the ultrasound scan criterion of having at least two ultrasound scan studies during the study period, and these 790 men were used for this study. Mean AAA size was 3.3 cm, with an average follow-up period of 3.89 +/- 1.93 years. The median expansion rate was 0.11 cm/year. Expansion rates were significantly different (P <.001) between 3.0-cm and 3.4-cm cm AAA and 3.5-cm and 3.9-cm AAA. There were no reported AAA ruptures during the study period, although cause of death data were available in only 43% of the patients. Few 3.0-cm to 3.9-cm AAAs expanded to 5.0 cm or more during the study period. The patients with 3.0-cm to 3.9-cm AAAs who underwent operative repair during the study period were younger, had larger initial AAA diameters, and had more rapid expansion rates. CONCLUSION: AAAs of 3.0 cm to 3.9 cm expanded slowly, did not rupture, and rarely had operative repair or expanded to more than 5.0 cm in our study of male patients. Expansion rates and the incidence rate of operative repair are more common in the 3.5-cm to 3.9-cm AAA when compared with the 3.0-cm to 3.4-cm AAA.     

Anatomic characteristics of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm on conventional CT scans: Implications for rupture risk

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze anatomic characteristics of patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), with conventional two-dimensional computed tomography (CT), including comparison with control subjects matched for age, gender, and size. METHODS: Records were reviewed to identify all CT scans obtained at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center or referring hospitals before emergency AAA repair performed because of rupture or acute severe pain (RUP group). CT scans obtained before elective AAA repair (ELEC group) were reviewed for age and gender match with patients in the RUP group. More than 40 variables were measured on each CT scan. Aneurysm diameter matching was achieved by consecutively deleting the largest RUP scan and the smallest ELEC scan to prevent bias. RESULTS: CT scans were analyzed for 259 patients with AAAs: 122 RUP and 137 ELEC. Patients were well matched for age, gender, and other demographic variables or risk factors. Maximum AAA diameter was significantly different in comparisons of all patients (RUP, 6.5 +/- 2 cm vs ELEC, 5.6 +/- 1 cm; P <.0001), and mean diameter of ruptured AAAs was 5 mm smaller in female patients (6.1 +/- 2 cm vs 6.6 +/- 2 cm; P =.007). Two hundred patients were matched for diameter, gender, and age (100 from each group; maximum AAA diameter, 6.0 +/- 1 cm vs 6.0 +/- 1 cm). Analysis of diameter-matched AAAs indicated that most variables were statistically similar in the two groups, including infrarenal neck length (17 +/- 1 mm vs 19 +/- 1 mm; P =.3), maximum thrombus thickness (25 +/- 1 mm vs 23 +/- 1 mm, P =.4), and indices of body habitus, such as [(maximum AAA diameter)/(normal suprarenal aorta diameter)] or [(maximum AAA diameter)/(L3 transverse diameter)]. Multivariate analysis controlling for gender indicated that the most significant variables for rupture were aortic tortuosity (odds ratio [OR] 3.3, indicating greater risk with no or mild tortuosity), diameter asymmetry (OR, 3.2 for a 1-cm difference in major-minor axis), and current smoking (OR, 2.7, with the greater risk in current smokers). CONCLUSIONS: When matched for age, gender, and diameter, ruptured AAAs tend to be less tortuous, yet have greater cross-sectional diameter asymmetry. On conventional two-dimensional CT axial sections, it appears that when diameter asymmetry is associated with low aortic tortuosity, the larger diameter on axial sections more accurately reflects rupture risk, and when diameter asymmetry is associated with moderate or severe aortic tortuosity, the smaller diameter on axial sections more accurately reflects rupture risk. Current smoking is significantly associated with rupture, even when controlling for gender and AAA anatomy.     

The cost-effectiveness of early surgery versus watchful waiting in the management of small abdominal aortic aneurysms

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of two clinical strategies for managing 4 to 5 cm diameter abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs): early surgery (repair 4 cm AAA when diagnosed) versus watchful waiting (monitor AAA with ultrasound size measurements every 6 months and repair if the diameter reaches 5 cm).Methods: We used a Markov decision tree to compute the expected survival in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each strategy, based on literature-derived estimates for the probabilities of different outcomes in this model. We determined hospital costs for patients undergoing elective and emergency AAA repair at our center. With standard methods of cost accounting, we then calculated the additional cost per year of life saved by early surgery compared with watchful waiting (cost-effectiveness ratio, dollars/QALY).Results: Mean hospital costs for elective and emergency AAA repair were $24,020 and $43,208, respectively (1992 dollars). For our base-case analysis (60-year-old men with 4 cm diameter AAAs, with 5% elective operative mortality rate and 3.3% annual rupture rate), early surgery improved survival by 0.34 QALYs compared with watchful waiting, at an incremental cost of $17,404/QALY. Increased elective surgical mortality rate, decreased AAA rupture risk, and increased patient age all reduced the cost-effectiveness of early surgery. Future increases in elective operative risk, noncompliance with ultrasound follow-up and increased threshold size for elective AAA repair during watchful waiting all improved the cost-effectiveness of early surgery. Future increases in elective operative risk, noncompliance with ultrasound follow-up and increased threshold size for elective AAA repair during watchful waiting all improved the cost-effectiveness of early surgery.Conclusions: The cost effectiveness of early surgery for 4 cm diameter AAAs in carefully selected patients compares favorably with that of other commonly accepted preventive interventions such as hypertension screening and treatment. With an upper limit of $40,000/QALY as an "acceptable" cost-effectiveness ratio, early surgery appears to be justified for patients 70 years old or younger, if the AAA rupture risk is 3%/year or more and the elective operative mortality rate is 5% or less. Although not a substitute for clinical judgment, this cost-effectiveness analysis delineates the essential tradeoffs and uncertainties in treating patients with small AAAs. (J VASC SURG 1994;19:980–91.)     

Cost-effectiveness of surgery for small abdominal aortic aneurysms on the basis of data from the United Kingdom small aneurysm trial

PURPOSE: Although the United Kingdom small aneurysm trial reported no survival benefit for early operation in patients with small (4. 0-5.5 cm) abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs), the trial lacked statistical power to detect small but potentially meaningful gains in life expectancy, particularly for specific subgroups. We used decision analysis to better characterize the potential benefits and cost-effectiveness of early surgery. METHODS: We used a Markov model to assess the marginal cost-effectiveness (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY] saved) of early surgery relative to surveillance for small AAAs, using data from the UK Trial. Subgroup analyses were performed by patient age and AAA diameter. Sensitivity analysis was used to evaluate the effect of elective operative mortality on cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: In our baseline analysis, early operations provided a small survival advantage (0.14 QALYs) at a small incremental cost of $1510. Thus, despite a small survival benefit, early surgery appeared cost-effective ($10, 800/QALY). The small cost differential resulted from the large proportion of patients who underwent surveillance, who eventually underwent AAA repair, and therefore incurred the cost of the surgical procedures. The survival advantage and cost-effectiveness of early operation increased with lower operative mortality, younger age, and larger AAA diameter. CONCLUSION: Despite the negative conclusions of the UK trial, early surgery may be cost-effective for patients with small AAAs, particularly younger patients (<72 years of age) with larger AAAs (> or = 4.5 cm). Because the gains in life expectancy are relatively small, however, clinical decision making should be strongly guided by patient preferences.     

Abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery for octogenarians

Purpose  To define the indications for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery in octogenarians. Methods  We reviewed septuagenarians and octogenarians with a nonspecific AAA diagnosed at our hospital between January, 1990 and June, 2006. Results  Among a total 628 patients seen, 306 were in their 70s (group A) and 108 were in their 80s or older (group B). The mortality rate associated with elective surgery was 1.9% in group A and 7.0% in group B. Of the survivors, 12 (5.7%) of 210 in group A and 8 (15.1%) of 53 in group B died within 2 years. Of the patients who did not undergo surgery, 8 of 53 in group A and 8 of 31 in group B had AAAs greater than 6 cm in diameter. The rupture-free rates of AAAs greater than 6 cm in diameter were 64% at 1 year and 0% at 4 years in group A, and 88% at 1 year and 26% at 3 years in group B. The rupture-free rates of AAAs smaller than 6 cm in diameter were 95% at 3 years and 85% at 5 years in group A, and 100% at 5 years in group B. Conclusions  We concluded that AAAs over 6 cm in diameter were an appropriate indication for surgery in octogenarians.