Is ultrasound more accurate than axial computed tomography for determination of maximal abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter?

OBJECTIVE(S) Clinical assessment of maximal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) diameter assumes clinical equivalency between ultrasound (US) and axial computed tomography (CT). Three-dimensional (3D) CT reconstruction allows for the assessment of AAA in the orthogonal plane and avoids oblique cuts due to AAA angulation. This study was undertaken to compare maximal AAA diameter by US, axial CT, and orthogonal CT, and to assess the effect that AAA angulation has on each measurement. METHODS Maximal AAA diameter by US (US(max)), axial CT (axial(max)), and orthogonal CT (orthogonal(max)) along with aortic angulation and minor axis diameters were measured prospectively. Spiral CT data was processed by Medical Media Systems (West Lebanon, NH) to produce computerized axial CT and reformatted orthogonal CT images. The US technologists were blinded to all CT results and vice versa. RESULTS Thirty-eight patients were analyzed. Mean axial(max) (58.0 mm) was significantly larger (P<0.05) than US(max) (53.9 mm) or orthogonal(max) (54.7 mm). The difference between US(max) and orthogonal(max) (0.8 mm) was insignificant (P>0.05). When aortic angulation was <==25 degrees, axial(max) (55.3 mm), US(max) (54.3 mm), and orthogonal(max) (54.1 mm) were similar (P>0.05); however, when aortic angulation was >25 degrees, axial(max) (60.1 mm) was significantly larger (P<0.001) than US(max) (53.8 mm) and orthogonal(max) (55.0 mm). The limits of agreement (LOA) between axial(max) and both US(max) and orthogonal(max) was poor and exceeded clinical acceptability (+/-5 mm). The variation between US(max) and orthogonal(max) was minimal with an acceptable LOA of -2.7 to 4.5 mm. CONCLUSION Compared to axial CT, US is a better approximation of true perpendicular AAA diameter as determined by orthogonal CT. When aortic angulation is greater than 25 degrees axial CT becomes unreliable. However, US measurements are not affected by angulation and agree strongly with orthogonal CT measurements.

[1]  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.

[2]  G. Meier,et al.  Comparison of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements obtained with ultrasound and computed tomography: Is there a difference? , 2003, Journal of vascular surgery.

[3]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[4]  E. Bernstein,et al.  A current perspective on the natural history of abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 1994, Cardiovascular surgery.

[5]  W. Edwards,et al.  Discordance in the sizing of abdominal aortic aneurysm and its significance. , 1982, American journal of surgery.

[6]  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.

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

[8]  J Ochsner,et al.  Recommended indications for operative treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Report of a subcommittee of the Joint Council of the Society for Vascular Surgery and the North American Chapter of the International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery. , 1992, Journal of vascular surgery.

[9]  P. Desgranges,et al.  Follow-up evaluation of endoluminally treated abdominal aortic aneurysms with duplex ultrasonography: validation with computed tomography. , 2001, Journal of vascular surgery.

[10]  CT artifacts of the proximal aortic neck: an important problem in endograft planning. , 2002 .

[11]  G. Barber,et al.  The natural history of abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 1991, American journal of surgery.

[12]  M. P. Nevitt,et al.  Prognosis of abdominal aortic aneurysms. A population-based study. , 1989, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  L. Holmberg,et al.  Natural history of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. , 1991, European journal of vascular surgery.

[14]  S. Hamada,et al.  Aortic aneurysms: growth rates measured with CT. , 1992, Radiology.

[15]  R. Sayers,et al.  Comparison of computed tomography and duplex imaging in assessing aortic morphology following endovascular aneurysm repair , 1998, The British journal of surgery.

[16]  Wolf Yg,et al.  A current perspective on the natural history of abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 1994 .

[17]  C. Boissier,et al.  Comparison of Color Duplex Ultrasound and Computed Tomography Scan for Surveillance after Aortic Endografting , 2001, Annals of vascular surgery.

[18]  D. Zelt,et al.  Selective management of abdominal aortic aneurysms in a prospective measurement program. , 1996, Journal of vascular surgery.