Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in asymptomatic adults.

BACKGROUND This report was produced for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to provide guidelines on screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with ultrasound scan. PURPOSE The aim of this systematic review is to examine the evidence on benefits and harms of AAA screening. SEARCH STRATEGY This systematic review considered studies from the most recent United States Preventive Services Task Force review on AAA screening and passed through the screening process with citations identified in our search up to April 2015 (PROSPERO Registration #CRD42015019047). RESULTS For benefits of one-time AAA screening in men compared with controls, pooled analyses from four randomized controlled trials with moderate quality evidence showed significant reductions in AAA-related mortality and AAA rupture rate up to 13 to 15 years of follow-up with 42% reduction (risk ratio [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.39-0.88; number needed to screen = 212) and 38% reduction (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.45-0.86; number needed to screen = 200), respectively. The effect of on all-cause mortality was marginally significant for longer follow-up. The Chichester trial examined the benefits of one-time AAA screening in women and found no significant differences between screening and control arms for up to 10 years of follow-up (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07). For consequences of one-time AAA screening in men compared with controls, there was a significant increase in the total number of AAA-related procedures over a follow-up of 13 to 15 years (2.16 times more likely) compared with controls. For harms of one-time AAA screening, no significant differences were observed in 30-day postoperative mortality for elective and emergency operations with compared control groups. Evidence from the Multicenter Aneurysm Screening Study trial using 13-year follow-up data showed that one-time AAA screening with ultrasound scan was potentially associated with an overdiagnosis of 45% (95% CI, 42%-47%) among screen-detected men. CONCLUSIONS Population-based screening for AAA with ultrasound scan in asymptomatic men aged 65 years and older showed statistically significant reductions in AAA-related mortality and rupture and, hence, avoids unnecessary AAA-related deaths. The current evidence showed no benefit of one-time AAA screening in woman. Limited evidence is available on the benefits of repeat AAA screening and targeted screening approaches based on risk factors for AAA. Future research should explore the differential benefits of AAA screening based on risk factors that increase risk for developing AAA.

[1]  M. Björck,et al.  Low Quality of Life Prior to Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Possible Risk Factor for Negative Mental Effects , 2004, Annals of vascular surgery.

[2]  重川 須賀子,et al.  システマティックレビュー検索式査読のためのガイドライン : PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies , 2017 .

[3]  M. Björck,et al.  Editor's choice: five-year outcomes in men screened for abdominal aortic aneurysm at 65 years of age: a population-based cohort study. , 2014, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[4]  K. Jamrozik,et al.  Is screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm bad for your health and well‐being? , 2004, ANZ journal of surgery.

[5]  J. Lindholt,et al.  Psychological consequences of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm and conservative treatment of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2000, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[6]  D. Lyle,et al.  Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: does it affect men's quality of life? , 2012, Australian journal of primary health.

[7]  Wen-I Liao,et al.  Increased risk of malignancy in patients with an aortic aneurysm: a nationwide population-based retrospective study , 2017, Oncotarget.

[8]  David Moher,et al.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[9]  Sean Wallis,et al.  Binomial Confidence Intervals and Contingency Tests: Mathematical Fundamentals and the Evaluation of Alternative Methods , 2013, J. Quant. Linguistics.

[10]  E. Whitlock,et al.  Primary care screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a systematic evidence review for the US Preventive Services Task Force , 2014 .

[11]  杨敏 ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Peripheral Arterial Disease , 2014 .

[12]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2013 .

[13]  Rodney A. White,et al.  ACC/AHA 2005 Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography , 2006, Circulation.

[14]  S G Thompson,et al.  Screening men for abdominal aortic aneurysm: 10 year mortality and cost effectiveness results from the randomised Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  H. Hafez,et al.  Abdominal aortic aneurysm development in men following a "normal" aortic ultrasound scan. , 2008, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[16]  S. Wilson,et al.  Yield of repeated screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm after a 4-year interval. Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Investigators. , 2000, Archives of internal medicine.

[17]  J. Lindholt,et al.  Hospital costs and benefits of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Results from a randomised population screening trial. , 2002, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[18]  S G Thompson,et al.  Fifteen‐year follow‐up of a randomized clinical trial of ultrasonographic screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms , 2007, The British journal of surgery.

[19]  D. Altman,et al.  Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies , 2008 .

[20]  J. Lindholt,et al.  Preliminary ten year results from a randomised single centre mass screening trial for abdominal aortic aneurysm. , 2006, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[21]  Alexander J Sutton,et al.  What to add to nothing? Use and avoidance of continuity corrections in meta-analysis of sparse data. , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  J. Lindholt,et al.  High-risk and low-risk screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm both reduce aneurysm-related mortality. A stratified analysis from a single-centre randomised screening trial. , 2007, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[23]  Konrad Jamrozik,et al.  Population based randomised controlled trial on impact of screening on mortality from abdominal aortic aneurysm , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[24]  S. Thompson,et al.  Late results concerning feasibility and compliance from a randomized trial of ultrasonographic screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm , 2002, The British journal of surgery.

[25]  G. Moneta,et al.  The aneurysm detection and management study screening program: validation cohort and final results. Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Investigators. , 2000, Archives of internal medicine.

[26]  D. Dichek,et al.  New Mouse Model of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Put Out to Expand. , 2017, Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology.

[27]  J. Lindholt,et al.  Long‐term benefit and cost‐effectiveness analysis of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms from a randomized controlled trial , 2010, The British journal of surgery.

[28]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[29]  H A Ashton,et al.  Randomized clinical trial of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in women , 2002, The British journal of surgery.

[30]  J. Brodersen,et al.  Estimating overdiagnosis in screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: could a change in smoking habits and lowered aortic diameter tip the balance of screening towards harm? , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[31]  Simon Thompson,et al.  A Sustained Mortality Benefit from Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[32]  Thomas S Riles,et al.  Analysis of risk factors for abdominal aortic aneurysm in a cohort of more than 3 million individuals. , 2010, Journal of vascular surgery.

[33]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Special Topics in Statistics , 2008 .

[34]  RAP Scott,et al.  The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial , 2002, The Lancet.

[35]  M J Buxton,et al.  Final follow-up of the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening , 2012, The British journal of surgery.

[36]  S. Feasson Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms : single centre randomised controlled trial , 2005 .

[37]  J. Brodersen,et al.  Consequences of screening in abdominal aortic aneurysm: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire , 2018, Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes.

[38]  H A Ashton,et al.  Influence of screening on the incidence of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: 5‐year results of a randomized controlled study , 1995, The British journal of surgery.