Jens Borgbjerg1, Martin Bøgsted2, Jes S Lindholt3, Carsten Behr-Rasmussen4, Arne Hørlyck5, Jens B Frøkjær6. 1. Department of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: jensborg@rm.dk. 2. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark. 3. Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Elitary Research Centre of Individualised Medicine in Arterial Disease (CIMA), Odense University Hospital, Denmark. 4. Department of Vascular Surgery, Viborg Hospital, Viborg, Denmark. 5. Department of Radiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 6. Department of Radiology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Controversy exists regarding optimal caliper placement in ultrasound assessment of maximum abdominal aortic diameter. This study aimed primarily to determine reproducibility of caliper placement in relation to the aortic wall with the three principal methods: leading to leading edge (LTL), inner to inner edge (ITI), and outer to outer edge (OTO). The secondary aim was to assess the mean difference between the OTO, ITI, and LTL diameters and estimate the impact of using either of these methods on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) prevalence in a screening program. METHODS: Radiologists (n=18) assessed the maximum antero-posterior abdominal aortic diameter by completing repeated caliper placements with the OTO, LTL, and ITI methods on 50 still abdominal aortic images obtained from an AAA screening program. Inter-observer reproducibility was calculated as the limit of agreement with the mean (LoA), which represents expected deviation of a single observer from the mean of all observers. Intra-observer reproducibility was assessed averaging the LoA for each observer with their repeated measurements. Based on data from an AAA screening trial and the estimated mean differences between the three principal methods, AAA prevalence was estimated using each of the methods. RESULTS: The inter-observer LoA of the OTO, ITI, and LTL was 2.6, 1.9, and 1.9 mm, whereas the intra-observer LoA was 2.0, 1.6, and 1.5 mm, respectively. Mean differences of 5.0 mm were found between OTO and ITI measurements, 2.6 mm between OTO and LTL measurements, and 2.4 mm between LTL and ITI measurements. The prevalence of AAA almost doubled using OTO instead of ITI, while the difference between ITI and LTL was minor (3.3% vs. 4.0% AAA). CONCLUSIONS: The study shows superior reproducibility of LTL and ITI compared with the OTO method of caliper placement in ultrasound determination of maximum abdominal aortic diameter, and the choice of caliper placement method significantly affects the prevalence of AAAs in screening programs.
OBJECTIVES: Controversy exists regarding optimal caliper placement in ultrasound assessment of maximum abdominal aortic diameter. This study aimed primarily to determine reproducibility of caliper placement in relation to the aortic wall with the three principal methods: leading to leading edge (LTL), inner to inner edge (ITI), and outer to outer edge (OTO). The secondary aim was to assess the mean difference between the OTO, ITI, and LTL diameters and estimate the impact of using either of these methods on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) prevalence in a screening program. METHODS: Radiologists (n=18) assessed the maximum antero-posterior abdominal aortic diameter by completing repeated caliper placements with the OTO, LTL, and ITI methods on 50 still abdominal aortic images obtained from an AAA screening program. Inter-observer reproducibility was calculated as the limit of agreement with the mean (LoA), which represents expected deviation of a single observer from the mean of all observers. Intra-observer reproducibility was assessed averaging the LoA for each observer with their repeated measurements. Based on data from an AAA screening trial and the estimated mean differences between the three principal methods, AAA prevalence was estimated using each of the methods. RESULTS: The inter-observer LoA of the OTO, ITI, and LTL was 2.6, 1.9, and 1.9 mm, whereas the intra-observer LoA was 2.0, 1.6, and 1.5 mm, respectively. Mean differences of 5.0 mm were found between OTO and ITI measurements, 2.6 mm between OTO and LTL measurements, and 2.4 mm between LTL and ITI measurements. The prevalence of AAA almost doubled using OTO instead of ITI, while the difference between ITI and LTL was minor (3.3% vs. 4.0% AAA). CONCLUSIONS: The study shows superior reproducibility of LTL and ITI compared with the OTO method of caliper placement in ultrasound determination of maximum abdominal aortic diameter, and the choice of caliper placement method significantly affects the prevalence of AAAs in screening programs.
Authors: Andrea Corda; Francesca Corda; Domenico Caivano; Laura Saderi; Giovanni Sotgiu; Alessandra Mollica; Francesco Birettoni; Francesco Porciello; Maria Luisa Pinna Parpaglia Journal: J Vet Intern Med Date: 2020-09-19 Impact factor: 3.333