BACKGROUND: Longer-term mortality benefit and cost-effectiveness for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the benefits, in terms of AAA-related and all-cause mortality, and cost-effectiveness of ultrasonography screening for AAA in a group that was invited to screening compared with a group that was not invited at a mean 7-year follow-up. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: 4 centers in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Population-based sample of 67,770 men age 65 to 74 years. INTERVENTION: Patients with an AAA detected at screening had surveillance and were offered surgery after predefined criteria were met. MEASUREMENTS: Mortality data were obtained after flagging on the national database. Unit costs obtained from large samples were applied to individual event data for the cost analysis. RESULTS: The hazard ratio was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.68) for AAA-related mortality in the group invited for screening. The rupture rate in men with normal results on initial ultrasonography has remained low: 0.54 rupture (CI, 0.25 to 1.02 ruptures) per 10 000 person-years. In terms of all-cause mortality, the observed hazard ratio was 0.96 (CI, 0.93 to 1.00). At the 7-year follow-up, cost-effectiveness was estimated at $19 500 (CI, $12,400 to $39,800) per life-year gained based on AAA-related mortality and $7600 (CI, $3300 to infinity) per life-year gained based on all-cause death. (All values are reported in U.S. dollars [U.K. 1 pound sterling = U.S. $1.58]). LIMITATION: Inclusion of deaths from aortic aneurysm at an unspecified site, which may include some thoracic aortic aneurysms, may have underestimated the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: These results from a large, pragmatic randomized trial show that the early mortality benefit of screening ultrasonography for AAA is maintained in the longer term and that the cost-effectiveness of screening improves over time. International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial registration number: ISRCTN37381646.
BACKGROUND: Longer-term mortality benefit and cost-effectiveness for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening are uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the benefits, in terms of AAA-related and all-cause mortality, and cost-effectiveness of ultrasonography screening for AAA in a group that was invited to screening compared with a group that was not invited at a mean 7-year follow-up. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: 4 centers in the United Kingdom. PATIENTS: Population-based sample of 67,770 men age 65 to 74 years. INTERVENTION: Patients with an AAA detected at screening had surveillance and were offered surgery after predefined criteria were met. MEASUREMENTS: Mortality data were obtained after flagging on the national database. Unit costs obtained from large samples were applied to individual event data for the cost analysis. RESULTS: The hazard ratio was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.68) for AAA-related mortality in the group invited for screening. The rupture rate in men with normal results on initial ultrasonography has remained low: 0.54 rupture (CI, 0.25 to 1.02 ruptures) per 10 000 person-years. In terms of all-cause mortality, the observed hazard ratio was 0.96 (CI, 0.93 to 1.00). At the 7-year follow-up, cost-effectiveness was estimated at $19 500 (CI, $12,400 to $39,800) per life-year gained based on AAA-related mortality and $7600 (CI, $3300 to infinity) per life-year gained based on all-cause death. (All values are reported in U.S. dollars [U.K. 1 pound sterling = U.S. $1.58]). LIMITATION: Inclusion of deaths from aortic aneurysm at an unspecified site, which may include some thoracic aortic aneurysms, may have underestimated the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: These results from a large, pragmatic randomized trial show that the early mortality benefit of screening ultrasonography for AAA is maintained in the longer term and that the cost-effectiveness of screening improves over time. International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial registration number: ISRCTN37381646.
Authors: John Eaton; Darcy Reed; Kurt B Angstman; Kris Thomas; Frederick North; Robert Stroebel; Sidna M Tulledge-Scheitel; Rajeev Chaudhry Journal: J Eval Clin Pract Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 2.431