Literature DB >> 18765027

Ultrasound surveillance of ectatic abdominal aortas.

S Devaraj1, S R Dodds.   

Abstract

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 >or= 3.0 cm and >or= 5.0 cm in diameter were also calculated.
RESULTS: Out of 999 patients with AAA >or= 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 >or= 3.0 cm, 45 (13%) expanded to >or= 5.0 cm and only 8 (2%) expanded to >or= 5.5 cm over a mean follow-up of 5.4 years (range, 1-14 years). No ectatic aortas expanded to >or= 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 (>or= 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 >or= 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 >or= 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).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18765027      PMCID: PMC2647240          DOI: 10.1308/003588408X301064

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  21 in total

1.  Optimal interval screening and surveillance of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Authors:  J S Lindholt; S Vammen; S Juul; H Fasting; E W Henneberg
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 7.069

2.  Probabilities of progression of aortic aneurysms: estimates and implications for screening policy.

Authors:  E Couto; S W Duffy; H A Ashton; N M Walker; J P Myles; R A P Scott; S G Thompson
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.136

3.  A single normal ultrasonographic scan at age 65 years rules out significant aneurysm disease for life in men.

Authors:  P Crow; E Shaw; J J Earnshaw; K R Poskitt; M R Whyman; B P Heather
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2001-07       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 4.  An overview of matrix metalloproteinases in the pathogenesis and treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Authors:  W Brent Keeling; Paul A Armstrong; Patrick A Stone; Dennis F Bandyk; Murray L Shames
Journal:  Vasc Endovascular Surg       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 1.089

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

Authors:  J S Lindholt; S Juul; H Fasting; E W Henneberg
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 7.069

6.  The long-term benefits of a single scan for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) at age 65.

Authors:  R A Scott; K A Vardulaki; N M Walker; N E Day; S W Duffy; H A Ashton
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 7.069

7.  Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms: single centre randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Jes S Lindholt; Svend Juul; Helge Fasting; Eskild W Henneberg
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-03-09

8.  Influence of screening on the incidence of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: 5-year results of a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  R A Scott; N M Wilson; H A Ashton; D N Kay
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 6.939

9.  Growth rates and risk of rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Authors:  K A Vardulaki; T C Prevost; N M Walker; N E Day; A B Wilmink; C R Quick; H A Ashton; R A Scott
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 6.939

10.  Is surgery necessary for abdominal aortic aneurysm less than 6 cm in diameter?

Authors:  R A Scott; N M Wilson; H A Ashton; D N Kay
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1993-12-04       Impact factor: 79.321

View more
  7 in total

1.  Risk of developing an abdominal aortic aneurysm after ectatic aorta detection from initial screening.

Authors:  Kevin C Chun; Richard C Anderson; Hunter C Smothers; Kanika Sood; Zachary T Irwin; Machelle D Wilson; Eugene S Lee
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2019-11-07       Impact factor: 4.268

2.  Prognostic value of D-dimer and markers of coagulation for stratification of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth.

Authors:  Alexandra C Sundermann; Keith Saum; Kelsey A Conrad; Hannah M Russell; Todd L Edwards; Kevin Mani; Martin Björck; Anders Wanhainen; A Phillip Owens
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2018-11-27

3.  The value of evaluating the abdominal aorta in patients <50 years of age presenting for abdominal ultrasound.

Authors:  Martin Necas; Matt Adams; Orlaith Brennan; Nicole Curtis; Rachel Heslop; Emma Woodrow-Smith
Journal:  Australas J Ultrasound Med       Date:  2020-05-27

4.  A multi-locus genetic risk score for abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Authors:  Zi Ye; Erin Austin; Daniel J Schaid; Iftikhar J Kullo
Journal:  Atherosclerosis       Date:  2016-01-05       Impact factor: 5.162

5.  Lower respiratory tract infection and rapid expansion of an abdominal aortic aneurysm: a case report.

Authors:  Steven Naylor; Zakareya Gamie; Ravinder S Vohra; Sapna Puppala; Patrick J Kent; D Julian A Scott
Journal:  J Med Case Rep       Date:  2010-10-21

Review 6.  Prevalence and natural history of and risk factors for subaneurysmal aorta among 65-year-old men.

Authors:  Knut Thorbjørnsen; Sverker Svensjö; Khatereh Djavani Gidlund; Nils-Peter Gilgen; Anders Wanhainen
Journal:  Ups J Med Sci       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 2.384

7.  Tailor-Made Tapering Grafts for Large-Neck Aorta.

Authors:  Takuro Shirasu; Masaru Kimura; Takanori Kaneko; Takatoshi Furuya; Kaito Fukuda; Motoki Nagai; Yukihiro Nomura
Journal:  Ann Vasc Dis       Date:  2022-03-25
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.