Reproducibility of Deriving Parameters of AAA Rupture Risk From Patient-Specific 3D Finite Element Models

Purpose To assess the reproducibility of estimating biomechanical parameters of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) based on finite element (FE) computations derived from a commercially available, semiautomatic vascular analyzer that reconstructs computed tomographic angiography (CTA) data into FE models. Methods The CTA data from 10 consecutive male patients (mean age 74 years, range 63–87) with a fusiform infrarenal AAA >5 cm in diameter were used for this study, along with the CTA scans from 4 individuals without aortic disease. Three different observers used semiautomatic reconstruction software to create deformable contour models from axial CT scans. These 3-dimensional FE models captured the aortic wall and thrombus tissue using isotropic finite strain constitutive modeling. Geometric (maximum diameter and volume measurements based on an anatomical centerline) and biomechanical determinants [aneurysm peak wall stress (PWS) and the peak wall rupture risk (PWRR) index] were then calculated from the FE models. The determinations were made 5 times for each anonymized dataset presented for analysis in random order (5-fold measurements for 14 datasets produced 210 measurements from the 3 observers). Inter- and intraobserver variability were assessed by calculating the coefficient of variation of these repeated measures. The methodological variations were expressed with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. Results The median segmentation time was <1 hour (mean 39.2 minutes, range 25–48) for datasets from the AAA patients; for the healthy individuals, segmentation times were considerably shorter (median 8.7 minutes, range 4–15). Intraobserver reproducibility was high, as represented by a CV <3% for the diameter measurement and <5.5% for volume, PWS, and the PWRR index. The ICC was 0.97 (range 0.95–0.98) for diameter and 0.98 (range 0.97–0.99) for volume; for PWS and the PWRR index, the ICCs were equal at 0.98 (range 0.97–0.99). Conclusion The reproducibility of volume and maximum diameter measurements in infrarenal AAAs with FE analysis is high. With the model used in this semiautomatic reconstruction software, wall stress analysis can be achieved with high agreement among observers and in serial measurements by a single observer.

[1]  M J Fagan,et al.  A comparative study of aortic wall stress using finite element analysis for ruptured and non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2004, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[2]  Gilles Soulez,et al.  Clinical validation of a software for quantitative follow-up of abdominal aortic aneurysm maximal diameter and growth by CT angiography. , 2011, European journal of radiology.

[3]  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.

[4]  Jonathan P Vande Geest,et al.  Biomechanical determinants of abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture. , 2005, Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology.

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

[6]  W. Wall,et al.  A Comparison of Diameter, Wall Stress, and Rupture Potential Index for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Rupture Risk Prediction , 2010, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[7]  D A Vorp,et al.  Association of intraluminal thrombus in abdominal aortic aneurysm with local hypoxia and wall weakening. , 2001, Journal of vascular surgery.

[8]  J. Blankensteijn,et al.  Wall stress analysis in small asymptomatic, symptomatic and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2007, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[9]  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.

[10]  E Georgakarakos,et al.  Peak wall stress does not necessarily predict the location of rupture in abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2010, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[11]  Mark F Fillinger,et al.  In vivo analysis of mechanical wall stress and abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk. , 2002, Journal of vascular surgery.

[12]  J. Blankensteijn,et al.  Preoperative sizing of grafts for transfemoral endovascular aneurysm management: a prospective comparative study of spiral CT angiography, arteriography, and conventional CT imaging. , 1997, Journal of endovascular surgery : the official journal of the International Society for Endovascular Surgery.

[13]  S. Nicholls,et al.  Rupture in small abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 1998, Journal of vascular surgery.

[14]  Jonathan P Vande Geest,et al.  A Biomechanics‐Based Rupture Potential Index for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Risk Assessment , 2006, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[15]  L Speelman,et al.  Patient-specific AAA wall stress analysis: 99-percentile versus peak stress. , 2008, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

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

[17]  M. Thubrikar,et al.  Effect of thrombus on abdominal aortic aneurysm wall dilation and stress. , 2003, The Journal of cardiovascular surgery.

[18]  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.

[19]  Manish Mehta,et al.  Variability of maximal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements on CT scan: significance and methods to minimize. , 2004, Journal of vascular surgery.

[20]  J. Bartko The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient as a Measure of Reliability , 1966, Psychological reports.

[21]  Jan D. Blankensteijn,et al.  Preoperative Sizing of Grafts for Transfemoral Endovascular Aneurysm Management: A Prospective Comparative Study of Spiral CT Angiography, Arteriography, and Conventional CT Imaging , 1997 .

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

[23]  M. Watkins,et al.  Peak wall stress measurement in elective and acute abdominal aortic aneurysms , 2009 .

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

[25]  The centenary of blood pressure measurement:a tribute to Scipione Riva‐Rocci , 1996 .

[26]  Barry J Doyle,et al.  New approaches to abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk assessment: engineering insights with clinical gain. , 2010, Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology.

[27]  J Swedenborg,et al.  Growth of thrombus may be a better predictor of rupture than diameter in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. , 2000, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.

[28]  F. N. van de Vosse,et al.  The influence of wall stress on AAA growth and biomarkers. , 2010, European journal of vascular and endovascular surgery : the official journal of the European Society for Vascular Surgery.