Part One: For the Motion. Evidence Supports Reducing the Threshold Diameter to 5 cm for Elective Interventions in Women With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Brazilian Society for Angiology and Vascular Surgery guidelines on abdominal aortic aneurysm

The Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery, through the Guidelines Project, presents new Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Guidelines, on the subject of care for abdominal aortic aneurysm patients. Its development prioritized descriptive guidelines, using the EMBASE, LILACS, and PubMed databases. References include randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and cohort studies. Quality of evidence was evaluated by a pair of coordinators, aided by the RoB 2 Cochrane tool and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale forms. The subjects include juxtarenal aneurysms, infected aneurysms, and new therapeutic techniques, especially endovascular procedures. The current version of the guidelines include important recommendations for the primary topics involving diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up for abdominal aortic aneurysm patients, providing an objective guide for medical practice, based on scientific evidence and widely available throughout Brazil.

Screening women aged 65 years or over for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a modelling study and health economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programmes have been established for men in the UK to reduce deaths from AAA rupture. Whether or not screening should be extended to women is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of population screening for AAAs in women and compare a range of screening options.

DESIGN

A discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed to provide a clinically realistic model of screening, surveillance, and elective and emergency AAA repair operations. Input parameters specifically for women were employed. The model was run for 10 million women, with parameter uncertainty addressed by probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses.

SETTING

Population screening in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Women aged ≥ 65 years, followed up to the age of 95 years.

INTERVENTIONS

Invitation to ultrasound screening, followed by surveillance for small AAAs and elective surgical repair for large AAAs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Number of operations undertaken, AAA-related mortality, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), NHS costs and cost-effectiveness with annual discounting.

DATA SOURCES

AAA surveillance data, National Vascular Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, trials of elective and emergency AAA surgery, and the NHS Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme (NAAASP).

REVIEW METHODS

Systematic reviews of AAA prevalence and, for elective operations, suitability for endovascular aneurysm repair, non-intervention rates, operative mortality and literature reviews for other parameters.

RESULTS

The prevalence of AAAs (aortic diameter of ≥ 3.0 cm) was estimated as 0.43% in women aged 65 years and 1.15% at age 75 years. The corresponding attendance rates following invitation to screening were estimated as 73% and 62%, respectively. The base-case model adopted the same age at screening (65 years), definition of an AAA (diameter of ≥ 3.0 cm), surveillance intervals (1 year for AAAs with diameter of 3.0-4.4 cm, 3 months for AAAs with diameter of 4.5-5.4 cm) and AAA diameter for consideration of surgery (5.5 cm) as in NAAASP for men. Per woman invited to screening, the estimated gain in QALYs was 0.00110, and the incremental cost was £33.99. This gave an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £31,000 per QALY gained. The corresponding incremental net monetary benefit at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained was -£12.03 (95% uncertainty interval -£27.88 to £22.12). Almost no sensitivity analyses brought the ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained; an exception was doubling the AAA prevalence to 0.86%, which resulted in an ICER of £13,000. Alternative screening options (increasing the screening age to 70 years, lowering the threshold for considering surgery to diameters of 5.0 cm or 4.5 cm, lowering the diameter defining an AAA in women to 2.5 cm and lengthening the surveillance intervals for the smallest AAAs) did not bring the ICER below £20,000 per QALY gained when considered either singly or in combination.

LIMITATIONS

The model for women was not directly validated against empirical data. Some parameters were poorly estimated, potentially lacking relevance or unavailable for women.

CONCLUSION

The accepted criteria for a population-based AAA screening programme in women are not currently met.

FUTURE WORK

A large-scale study is needed of the exact aortic size distribution for women screened at relevant ages. The DES model can be adapted to evaluate screening options in men.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020444 and CRD42016043227.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of targeted screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in siblings

Background

Population screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in 65‐year‐old men has been shown to be cost‐effective. A risk group with higher prevalence is siblings of patients with an AAA. This health economic model‐based study evaluated the potential cost‐effectiveness of targeted AAA screening of siblings.

Methods

A Markov model validated against other screening programmes was used. Two methods of identifying siblings were analysed: direct questioning of patients with an AAA (method A), and employing a national multigeneration register (method B). The prevalence was based on observed ultrasound data on AAAs in siblings. Additional parameters were extracted from RCTs, vascular registers, literature and ongoing screening. The outcome was cost‐effectiveness, probability of cost‐effectiveness at different willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) thresholds, reduction in AAA death, quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs) gained and total costs on a national scale.

Results

Methods A and B were estimated to reduce mortality from AAA, at incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios of €7800 (95 per cent c.i. 4627 to 12 982) and €7666 (5000 to 13 373) per QALY respectively. The probability of cost‐effectiveness was 99 per cent at a WTP of €23 000. The absolute risk reduction in AAA deaths was five per 1000 invited. QALYs gained were 27 per 1000 invited. In a population of ten million, methods A and B were estimated to prevent 12 and 17 AAA deaths, among 2418 and 3572 siblings identified annually, at total costs of €499 500 and €728 700 respectively.

Conclusion

The analysis indicates that aneurysm‐related mortality could be decreased cost‐effectively by applying a targeted screening method for siblings of patients with an AAA.

Morphological and Biomechanical Features in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm with Long and Short Neck-Case-Control Study in 64 Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Both, open and endovascular, procedures are related to higher complication rate in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with shorter neck. Previous study showed that long-neck AAA might have lower risk of rupture. Estimation of biomechanical forces in AAA improves rupture risk assessment. The aim of this study was to compare morphological features and biomechanical forces in the short- and long-neck AAA with threshold of 15 mm.

METHODS

Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine images of 64 aneurysms were prospectively collected and analyzed in a case-control study. Using commercially available software, Peak wall Stress (PWS) and Rupture Risk Equivalent Diameter (RRED) were determined. Difference between the maximal aneurysm diameter (MAD) and RRED was calculated and expressed as an absolute and relative (percentage of the MAD) value. In addition, volume of intraluminal thrombus (ILT) was calculated and expressed relative to AAA volume.

RESULTS

Study included 64 AAA divided in group with long (36, 56.25%), and short (28, 43.75%) neck. There was no correlation between neck length and MAD, PWS, and RRED (P = 0.646, P = 0.421, and P = 0.405, respectively). Relative ILT volume was greater in the short-neck aneurysms (P = 0.033). Relative difference between RRED and MAD was -4% and -14.8% in short- and long-neck aneurysms, respectively (P = 0.029). The difference between RRED and MAD was positive in 14/28 patients (50%) with short neck and in 6/35 patients (17.14%) with long neck (P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our biomechanical analysis, in AAA with neck longer than 15 mm rupture risk might be lower than the risk estimated by its diameter. It might be explained with lower relative volume of ILT.