Variability of maximal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements on CT scan: significance and methods to minimize.

OBJECTIVES We noted substantial differences when measuring repeatedly the same abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) on the same computed tomography (CT) scan. This study quantitated this variability, and methods to minimize it were developed. METHODS The CT maximal diameter of 25 AAAs was measured by eight experienced observers, including six vascular surgeons and two radiologists, using two methods: an unstandardized protocol, and a standardized protocol using fine calipers to carefully measure the largest diameter perpendicular to the estimated aneurysm centerline, from outer aneurysm wall to outer wall. The average measurement difference between observers was calculated for each method. The average difference between each observer's measurement and the official radiology report value was also calculated. Agreement between the two measurement methods was assessed with Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS The difference in maximal diameter measurements between each observer averaged 4.0 +/- 5.1 mm (range, 0.0-35.0 mm) with the unstandardized method. The mean measurement difference with the standardized protocol was significantly lower, and averaged 2.8 +/- 4.4 mm (range, 0.0-26.0 mm; P<.05). Measurements taken from the official radiology report differed from each of the observer's standardized measurement by an average of 5.0 +/- 6.3 mm (range, 0.0-28.0 mm). This difference was similar for both the unstandardized and standardized methods. Bland-Altman plots confirmed the wide variation of the maximal diameter measurements when the unstandardized method was compared with the standardized method (95% confidence interval, -9-9 mm). CONCLUSIONS Routine CT maximal diameter measurement of AAAs can have substantial interobserver variability. Standardized measurement protocols can decrease, but not eliminate, this measurement variability. Thus apparent size changes based on CT measurements may represent measurement artifact rather than actual aneurysm growth or shrinkage, particularly when a standardized system is not used.

[1]  E. Di Cesare,et al.  Abdominal aortic aneurysm evaluation: comparison of US, CT, MRI, and angiography. , 1989, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[2]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[3]  P. Faries,et al.  An Experimental Model for the Acute and Chronic Evaluation of Intra-Aneurysmal Pressure , 1997, Journal of endovascular surgery : the official journal of the International Society for Endovascular Surgery.

[4]  A. R. Brady,et al.  Long-term outcomes of immediate repair compared with surveillance of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2002 .

[5]  L J Schultze Kool,et al.  Abdominal aortic aneurysm measurements for endovascular repair: intra- and interobserver variability of CT measurements. , 1999, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[6]  F. Veith,et al.  Increasing Incidence of Midterm and Long-Term Complications After Endovascular Graft Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Note of Caution Based on a 9-Year Experience , 2001, Annals of surgery.

[7]  L. Norgren,et al.  Significance of endoleaks after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: The EUROSTAR experience. , 2002, Journal of vascular surgery.

[8]  J. H. van Bockel,et al.  Endoleakage after stent-graft treatment of abdominal aneurysm: implications on pressure and imaging--an in vitro study. , 1998, Journal of vascular surgery.

[9]  W. Mali,et al.  Inter- and intraobserver variability of CT measurements obtained after endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  P. Faries,et al.  Chronic intraaneurysmal pressure measurement: an experimental method for evaluating the effectiveness of endovascular aortic aneurysm exclusion. , 1997, Journal of vascular surgery.

[11]  Rodney A. White,et al.  Nature and significance of endoleaks and endotension: summary of opinions expressed at an international conference. , 2002, Journal of vascular surgery.

[12]  D. Gould,et al.  Freedom from endoleak after endovascular aneurysm repair does not equal treatment success. , 2000, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[13]  M. Lindh,et al.  Changing aneurysmal morphology after endovascular grafting: relation to leakage or persistent perfusion. , 1997, Journal of endovascular surgery : the official journal of the International Society for Endovascular Surgery.

[14]  D J Ballard,et al.  Variability in measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group. , 1995, Journal of vascular surgery.

[15]  J. Powell,et al.  Limitations of ultrasonography in surveillance of small abdominal aortic aneurysms , 1991, The British journal of surgery.

[16]  J Swedenborg,et al.  The efficacy of transfemoral endovascular aneurysm management: a study on size changes of the abdominal aorta during mid-term follow-up. , 1997, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[17]  P. Kreienberg,et al.  The incidence, natural history, and outcome of secondary intervention for persistent collateral flow in the excluded abdominal aortic aneurysm. , 1999, Journal of vascular surgery.

[18]  J. Blankensteijn,et al.  Maximal aneurysm diameter follow-up is inadequate after endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. , 2000, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[19]  Gomes Mn,et al.  Pre-operative evaluation of abdominal aortic aneurysms: ultrasound or computed tomography? , 1987 .

[20]  K. Partanen,et al.  Interobserver variability in measuring the dimensions of the abdominal aorta: comparison of ultrasound and computed tomography. , 1996, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[21]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[22]  Samuel E. Wilson,et al.  Immediate repair compared with surveillance of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2002, The New England journal of medicine.