Volume growth of abdominal aortic aneurysms correlates with baseline volume and increasing finite element analysis-derived rupture risk.

BACKGROUND The diagnosis and management of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) currently relies on the aortic maximal diameter, which grows in an unpredictable manner. Infrarenal aortic volume has recently become clinically feasible to measure, and an estimate of biomechanical rupture risk derived from finite element analysis, the peak wall rupture index (PWRI), has been shown to predict AAA rupture. Our objective was to ascertain how well volume growth correlates with baseline volume and increasing PWRI, compared with the maximal diameter. METHODS We retrospectively identified 41 AAA patients (nine women, 32 men) at our institution who had undergone two computed tomography angiographies with an interval of 8 to 17 months. Digital three-dimensional reproductions of the aneurysms were segmented from the 82 computed tomography angiographies. AAA diameter, volume, and PWRI were measured and calculated with finite element analysis software. Growth rates of diameter and volume were related to baseline diameter and volume as well as to change rates of PWRI. Significant growth was defined as growth exceeding our interobserver 95% limits of agreement. RESULTS Diameter growth rate did not correlate with baseline diameter (r = 0.15, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.17 to 0.45), but volume growth rate correlated with baseline volume (r = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.30-0.75). The correlation between baseline volume and volume growth rate was stronger than the correlation between baseline diameter and diameter growth rate (95% CI, 0.086-0.71). Increasing PWRI correlated with volume growth rate (r = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-0.87) but not with diameter growth rate (r = 0.044; 95% CI, -0.44 to 0.51), and the difference between the correlation coefficients was significant (95% CI, 0.11-1.16). CONCLUSIONS Volume better predicts aneurysm growth rate and correlates stronger with increasing estimated biomechanical rupture risk compared with diameter. Our results support the notion of monitoring all three dimensions of an AAA.

[1]  Frans N van de Vosse,et al.  Effects of wall calcifications in patient-specific wall stress analyses of abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2007, Journal of biomechanical engineering.

[2]  A Nchimi,et al.  A novel strategy to translate the biomechanical rupture risk of abdominal aortic aneurysms to their equivalent diameter risk: method and retrospective validation. , 2014, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[3]  Per Eriksson,et al.  Influence of intraluminal thrombus on structural and cellular composition of abdominal aortic aneurysm wall. , 2003, Journal of vascular surgery.

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

[5]  W A Wall,et al.  Impact of calcifications on patient-specific wall stress analysis of abdominal aortic aneurysms , 2010, Biomechanics and modeling in mechanobiology.

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

[7]  T Christian Gasser,et al.  Failure properties of intraluminal thrombus in abdominal aortic aneurysm under static and pulsating mechanical loads. , 2008, Journal of vascular surgery.

[8]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[9]  M J Sweeting,et al.  Meta‐analysis of individual patient data to examine factors affecting growth and rupture of small abdominal aortic aneurysms , 2012, The British journal of surgery.

[10]  Eric Therasse,et al.  Measurements and detection of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth: Accuracy and reproducibility of a segmentation software. , 2012, European journal of radiology.

[11]  Martin Auer,et al.  Reconstruction and Finite Element Mesh Generation of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms From Computerized Tomography Angiography Data With Minimal User Interactions , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[12]  Mark F Fillinger,et al.  Prediction of rupture risk in abdominal aortic aneurysm during observation: wall stress versus diameter. , 2003, Journal of vascular surgery.

[13]  J. Byrne,et al.  Prognosis of patients turned down for conventional abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in the endovascular and sonographic era: Szilagyi revisited? , 2001, Journal of vascular surgery.

[14]  T Christian Gasser,et al.  Multidimensional growth measurements of abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2013, Journal of vascular surgery.

[15]  Adam Parr,et al.  Comparison of volume and diameter measurement in assessing small abdominal aortic aneurysm expansion examined using computed tomographic angiography. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[16]  D. D. Bois,et al.  CLINICAL CALORIMETRY: TENTH PAPER A FORMULA TO ESTIMATE THE APPROXIMATE SURFACE AREA IF HEIGHT AND WEIGHT BE KNOWN , 1916 .

[17]  M. Balasubramaniam,et al.  Size and location of thrombus in intact and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2005, Journal of vascular surgery.

[18]  J Swedenborg,et al.  Biomechanical rupture risk assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: model complexity versus predictability of finite element simulations. , 2010, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[19]  A. R. Brady,et al.  Mortality results for randomised controlled trial of early elective surgery or ultrasonographic surveillance for small abdominal aortic aneurysms , 1998, The Lancet.

[20]  Birk Diedenhofen,et al.  cocor: A Comprehensive Solution for the Statistical Comparison of Correlations , 2015, PloS one.

[21]  D. Vorp,et al.  The effects of aneurysm on the biaxial mechanical behavior of human abdominal aorta. , 2006, Journal of biomechanics.

[22]  J. Kalbfleisch,et al.  Reconsidering gender relative to risk of rupture in the contemporary management of abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2015, Journal of vascular surgery.

[23]  Simon G. Thompson,et al.  Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Expansion: Risk Factors and Time Intervals for Surveillance , 2004, Circulation.

[24]  Simon G Thompson,et al.  Surveillance intervals for small abdominal aortic aneurysms: a meta-analysis. , 2013, JAMA.

[25]  Elliot L Chaikof,et al.  The care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: the Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines. , 2009, Journal of vascular surgery.

[26]  T. Gasser,et al.  Meta‐analysis of peak wall stress in ruptured, symptomatic and intact abdominal aortic aneurysms , 2014, The British journal of surgery.

[27]  David A. Vorp,et al.  Towards A Noninvasive Method for Determination of Patient-Specific Wall Strength Distribution in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms , 2006, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[28]  L. Rouet,et al.  Abdominal aortic aneurysm imaging with 3-D ultrasound: 3-D-based maximum diameter measurement and volume quantification. , 2013, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[29]  G. Zou.  Toward using confidence intervals to compare correlations. , 2007, Psychological methods.

[30]  J. Powell,et al.  The role of diameter versus volume as the best prognostic measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2013, Journal of vascular surgery.

[31]  Dittmar Böckler,et al.  Reproducibility of Deriving Parameters of AAA Rupture Risk From Patient-Specific 3D Finite Element Models , 2011, Journal of endovascular therapy : an official journal of the International Society of Endovascular Specialists.

[32]  J. Gillard,et al.  Impact of calcification and intraluminal thrombus on the computed wall stresses of abdominal aortic aneurysm. , 2008, Journal of vascular surgery.