Psychological morbidity associated with abdominal aortic aneurysm screening

Psychosocial consequences of screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurisms: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

In Sweden, an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programme was gradually implemented from 2009 to reduce the incidence of rupture and thereby mortality. AAA screening introduces a variety of unintended, but generally unavoidable, harms, e.g. stress and worry. Such psychosocial consequences have previously only been investigated with generic measures. Therefore, the aim of this study was to describe and compare the psychosocial consequences in men with a screening detected AAA to men with a normal screening result after they participated in the Swedish national AAA-screening programme using a validated psychometric instrument.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was a cross-sectional survey. Data were originally collected to validate the COS-AAA and has previously been published in details. The Consequences of Screening in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (COS-AAA) questionnaire was sent to 250 men with a screening detected AAA and 500 with a normal screening result who were randomly selected from a Swedish population-based screening register.

RESULTS

In total, 158 (63%) men with a screening detected AAA and 275 (55%) men with a normal screening result completed the COS-AAA. We found that men with a screening detected AAA reported negative psychosocial consequences to a greater extent in 10 of 13 COS-AAA Part 1 scales, all statistically significant except three (behaviour, sleep and negative experiences from examination). For COS-AAA Part 2, there was a statistically significant difference between groups in four of five scales.

CONCLUSIONS

Men diagnosed with a screening detected AAA, reported more negative psychosocial consequences compared to men with a normal result. Screening for abdominal aorta aneurism (AAA) introduces intended benefits and unintended harms. Adequate measures are necessary to determine the balance between them.Key points:This study applied a condition-specific questionnaire with high content validity and adequate psychometric properties to measure psychosocial consequences in men participating in AAA screening.We found that men with a screening detected AAA reported more negative psychosocial consequences than men with a normal aorta size.The risk of negative psychosocial consequences is important to include in the decision making on whether to participate in screening or not.

Evaluating the prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the United States through a national screening database

OBJECTIVE

The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force guidelines for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening are based mainly on studies of older Caucasian males from non-U.S.

POPULATIONS

This study was designed to analyze the findings of a large, all-inclusive AAA screening program in the United States.

METHODS

Screening events were held nationally by a U.S. nonprofit organization between 2001 and 2017. AAA screening was offered regardless of risk profile. Participants filled out a demographics form with known comorbidities. Significant risk factors were determined using logistic regression with backward stepwise variable selection. Odds ratios (OR) are reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 9457 screened participants (47% male) were analyzed. The mean age was 67 ± 9 years with 40.8% between 65 and 75 years old. Most participants were Caucasian (83.4%), followed by African American (13.1%). Screened risk factors included hypertension (58.1%), hyperlipidemia (54.9%), smoking (52.0%), cardiac disease (29.2%), diabetes mellitus (18.4%), a family history of AAA (22.4%) or brain aneurysms (8.6%), and body mass index (26.9 ± 5.28). Overall, 267 participants (2.82%) were found to have an AAA (>3 cm). Those ages 65 to 75 had a prevalence of 2.98%. In a fully adjusted, multivariate logistic regression, there was an increased risk of AAA in males (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 2.39-4.40), current smokers (OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.36-4.54), previous smokers (OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.41-2.47), cardiac disease (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01-1.68), family history of AAA (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20-2.14), and advancing age (P < .0001). Female ever smokers 65 to 75 years old had a prevalence of 1.7%. Male smokers 45 to 54 and 55 to 64 years old had a prevalence of 3.37% and 4.43%, respectively. There was an increased risk of AAA in females with morbid obesity (OR, 5.54; 95% CI, 1.34-22.83 in never smokers and OR, 5.61; 95% CI, 1.04-30.15 in smokers), female smokers with hypertension (OR, 3.22; 95% CI, 1.21-8.58), males with cardiac disease (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.08-3.90 in never smokers and OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.05-2.09), male smokers with a family history of AAA (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.61-2.46), and current smokers (OR, 6.33; 95% CI, 2.62-15.24 for females and OR, 2.50; 95% CI, 1.70-3.65 for males).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that there remain high-risk groups outside the current guidelines that would likely benefit from AAA screening. Risk factors for AAA include male gender, smoking, cardiac disease, family history of AAA, and advancing age. The most significant risk factor is current smoking status.

Primary Care Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

IMPORTANCE

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) have mortality estimated at 81%.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence on benefits and harms of AAA screening and small aneurysm treatment to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, PubMed (publisher supplied only), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for relevant English-language studies published through September 2018. Surveillance continued through July 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

Trials of AAA screening benefits and harms; trials and cohort studies of small (3.0-5.4 cm) AAA treatment benefits and harms.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data. The Peto method was used to pool odds ratios (ORs) for AAA-related mortality, rupture, and operations; the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to pool calculated risk ratios for all-cause mortality.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

AAA and all-cause mortality; AAA rupture; treatment complications.

RESULTS

Fifty studies (N = 323 279) met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of population-based randomized clinical trials (RCTs) estimated that a screening invitation to men 65 years or older was associated with a reduction in AAA-related mortality over 12 to 15 years (OR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.57-0.74]; 4 RCTs [n = 124 926]), AAA-related ruptures over 12 to 15 years (OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.55-0.70]; 4 RCTs [n = 124 929]), and emergency surgical procedures over 4 to 15 years (OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.48-0.68]; 5 RCTS [n = 175 085]). In contrast, no significant association with all-cause mortality benefit was seen at 12- to 15-year follow-up (relative risk, 0.99 [95% CI 0.98-1.00]; 4 RCTs [n = 124 929]). One-time screening was associated with significantly more procedures over 4 to 15 years in the invited group compared with the control group (OR, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.34-1.55]; 5 RCTs [n = 175 085]). Four trials (n = 3314) of small aneurysm surgical treatment demonstrated no significant difference in AAA-related mortality or all-cause mortality compared with surveillance over 1.7 to 12 years. These 4 early surgery trials showed a substantial increase in procedures in the early surgery group. For small aneurysm treatment, registry data (3 studies [n = 14 424]) showed that women had higher surgical complications and postoperative mortality compared with men.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

One-time AAA screening in men 65 years or older was associated with decreased AAA-related mortality and rupture rates but was not associated with all-cause mortality benefit. Higher rates of elective surgery but no long-term differences in quality of life resulted from screening.

Impact on Quality of Life of Men with Screening-Detected Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Attending Regular Follow ups: A Narrative Literature Review

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to review, summarise, and assess the available evidence regarding the impact on the quality of life (QoL) of men undergoing screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and attending regular follow ups.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were used for searching. The search was performed from April to July 2016, with an update in February-March 2018. The quality of the studies was appraised with respective checklists from the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. A narrative synthesis of the included studies was performed. The analysis included studies evaluating QoL in relation to one or more of the following concepts: physical function, psychological impact and social life in men undergoing AAA screening, but excluded studies evaluating QoL in AAA patients diagnosed outside a screening program.

RESULTS

The initial results from the search were 128 articles. Duplicates were removed, titles and abstracts were screened, and 22 full text articles were collected. Based on the inclusion criteria, 11 quantitative studies were included. Inferior quality of life among men with detected AAA was identified compared to those without the diagnosis and the general population in the included studies. The self-perceived health decreased over time for the participants with AAA. Assessments after surgery showed that the participants returned to similar health as before the screening. A wide variety of factors regarding the methodologies, designs, measurements, sample sizes, and the time for the assessment were noted in the included studies.

CONCLUSION

Quality of life is an important outcome for AAA screening and studies have been conducted in an attempt to address the imbalance between benefits and harm. However, it is still difficult to draw clear conclusions, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the original studies. Nevertheless, it is important to identify men with an AAA who develop conditions influencing their health and QoL in order to understand their care needs to further support them and improve their situation.

Consequences of screening in abdominal aortic aneurysm: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire

Background

In interview studies, men under surveillance for screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurysms have reported ambivalence towards this diagnosis: the knowledge was welcomed together with worries, feelings of anxiety and existential thoughts about life’s fragility and mortality due to the diagnosis. Previous surveys about health-related quality of life aspects among men under surveillance for screening-detected aneurysm have all used generic patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to extend the core-questionnaire Consequences of Screening for use in abdominal aortic aneurysm screening by testing for comprehension, content coverage, dimensionality, and reliability.

Methods

In interviews, the suitability, content coverage, and relevance of the core-questionnaire Consequences of Screening were tested on men under surveillance for a screeningdetected abdominal aortic aneurysm. The results were thematically analysed to identify the key consequences of abnormal screening results. Item Response Theory and Classical Test Theory were used to analyse data. Dimensionality, differential item functioning, local response dependency and reliability were established by item analysis, examining the fit between item responses and Rasch models.

Results

The core-questionnaire Consequences of Screening was found to be relevant for men offered regular follow-up of an asymptomatic screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Fourteen themes especially relevant for men diagnosed with a screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurysm were extracted from the interviews: ‘Uncertainty about the result of the ultra sound examination’, ‘Change in body perception’, ‘Guilt’, ‘Fear and powerlessness’, ‘Negative experiences from the examination’, ‘Emotional reactions’, ‘Change in lifestyle’, ‘Better not knowing’, ‘Fear of rupture’, ‘Sexuality’, ‘Information’, ‘Stigmatised’, ‘Self-blame for smoking’, ‘Still regretful smoking’. Altogether, 55 new items were generated: 3 were single items and 13 were only relevant for former or current smokers. 51 of the 52 items belonging to a theme were confirmed to fit Rasch models measuring fourteen different constructs. No differential item functioning and only minor local dependency was revealed between some of the 51 items.

Conclusions

The reliability and the dimensionality of a condition-specific measure with high content validity for men under surveillance for a screening-detected abdominal aortic aneurysm have been demonstrated. This new questionnaire called COS-AAA covers in two parts the psychosocial experience in abdominal aortic aneurysm screening.

Impact of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on quality of life

BACKGROUND

Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is known to reduce AAA-related mortality; however, the psychological impact of population AAA screening is unclear. The aim was to assess the impact of AAA diagnosis on quality of life (QoL) using data from an established AAA screening programme.

METHODS

Mental and physical QoL scores for men diagnosed with AAA through participation in the English and Welsh AAA screening programmes were compared with no-AAA controls. Participants were identified through the United Kingdom Aneurysm Growth Study (UKAGS), a nationwide prospective cohort study of men with an AAA of less than 55 mm diagnosed through voluntary participation in screening. The UKAGS participants completed QoL questionnaires at the time of screening and annually thereafter.

RESULTS

A transient reduction in mental QoL scores was observed following the diagnosis of AAA, returning to baseline levels after 12 months. Physical QoL remained consistently lower in the AAA cohort. Participants thought about their AAA and the AAA growth progressively less 12 months after the initial screening diagnosis. AAA growth rate had no influence over QoL parameters.

DISCUSSION

This study suggests that screening for AAA does reduce mental QoL; however, this effect is transient (less than 12 months). Men diagnosed with AAA have a consistently worse physical QoL compared with controls.

Psychosocial consequences in men taking part in a national screening program for abdominal aortic aneurysm

Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has proven to reduce AAA-related mortality, but how the knowledge of having an untreated AAA affects health and daily life requires further clarification. The aim was to investigate the psychosocial consequences and sense of coherence (SOC) in 65-year-old men diagnosed with AAA and participating in a national screening program during a 6-month follow-up compared with men with no AAA. The single-center cohort study included 52 men with AAA and 118 men without AAA. A questionnaire including the Short Form 36 Health Survey, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, SOC, questions concerning stress, and questions related to AAA were answered at baseline and after 6 months. Men with AAA reported more problems with physical functioning, pain, and general health than men with a normal aorta at baseline. After 6 months, men with AAA still reported more problems with physical functioning and stress in relation to disease than men with normal aortic diameter. No differences were observed between groups in SOC, anxiety, and depression. A significantly higher satisfaction with information from the physician and desire to learn about the AAA diagnosis was reported at baseline compared with that at follow-up. Having knowledge about the AAA diagnosis may moderately impact physical health and perceived stress, and in combination with the increased prevalence of other cardiovascular diseases, may lead to impaired perceived health for men diagnosed with AAA.

Experiences of the screening process and the diagnosis abdominal aortic aneurysm among 65-year-old men from invitation to a 1-year surveillance

The prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is reported to be 2.2%-8% among men >65 years. During recent years, screening programs have been developed to detect AAA, prevent ruptures, and thereby saving lives. Therefore, most men with the diagnosis are monitored conservatively with regular reviews. The objective of the study was to describe how men diagnosed with abdominal aortic aneurysm <55 mm discovered by screening experience the process and diagnosis from invitation to 1 year after screening. A total of eleven 65-year-old men were included in three focus groups performed in a University Hospital in Sweden. These were qualitatively analyzed using manifest and latent content analysis. The experience of the screening process and having an abdominal aortic aneurysm in a long-term perspective revealed three categories: "trusting the health care system," emphasizing the need for continual follow-ups to ensure feelings of security; "the importance size," meaning that the measure was abstract and hard to understand; and "coping with the knowledge of abdominal aortic aneurysm," denoting how everyday life was based mostly on beliefs, since a majority lacked understanding about the meaning of the condition. The men want regular surveillance and surrendered to the health care system, but simultaneously experienced a lack of support thereof. Knowing the size of the aorta was important. The men expressed insecurity about how lifestyle might influence the abdominal aortic aneurysm and what they could do to improve their health condition. This highlights the importance of communicating knowledge about the abdominal aortic aneurysm to promote men's feelings of security and giving space to discuss the size of the aneurysm and lifestyle changes.

Patient-reported outcome measures in vascular surgery

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after vascular surgery are becoming increasingly important in the current era of health care reform. Although a number of general quality of life instruments exist, vascular disease-specific instruments may provide more targeted data on how patients feel after specific interventions. Here we provide a review of both generic and disease-specific instruments focused on arterial conditions, including peripheral arterial disease, carotid arterial disease, and aortic disease, which have been described in the literature. While many different tools currently exist, there is a paucity of well-validated, specific instruments that accurately reflect functional and objective measures of patients' arterial disease burden. A full understanding of the existing tools available to assess patients' perceived lifestyle impact of their disease and its treatments is essential for both research and clinical purposes, and to highlight the need for additional work on this topic.

Twenty-year review of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in men in the county of Gloucestershire, United Kingdom

OBJECTIVE

An ultrasound screening program for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in men began in Gloucestershire in 1990 and has been running for 20 years. This report examines the workload and results.

METHODS

We reviewed the screening database for attendance and outcome records from AAA surgery in Gloucestershire and postmortem and death certificate results looking for men who died from ruptured AAAs in the screening cohort. The setting was an AAA screening program in the county of Gloucestershire, UK. Men aged 65 were invited by year of birth to attend for an ultrasound screening for AAAs. Men with an aorta <2.6 cm were reassured and discharged; men with an aorta between 2.6 cm and 5.4 cm were offered follow-up surveillance; men with an aorta >5.4 cm were considered for intervention. We analyzed attendance rates, screening and surveillance outcomes, and intervention rates and outcomes over the 20 years of the study.

RESULTS

Some 61,982 men were invited, and 52,690 attended for screening (85% attendance). At first scan, 50,130 men (95.14%) had an aortic diameter <2.6 cm in diameter and were reassured and discharged; 148 men (0.28%) had an AAA >5.4 cm in diameter and were referred for possible treatment; 2412 (4.57%) had an aortic diameter between 2.6 and 5.4 cm and entered a program of ultrasound surveillance. The overall mean aortic diameter on initial scan fell from 2.1 cm to 1.7 cm during the study (reduction 0.015 cm/y, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.0144-0.0156 cm/y; P < .0001). Some 631 patients with AAAs had intervention treatment with a perioperative mortality rate of 3.9%; during the same interval, 372 AAAs detected incidentally were treated, with a mortality rate of 6.7%. The number of ruptured AAAs treated annually in Gloucestershire fell during the study (χ(2) for trend = 18.31, df = 1; P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Screening reduced the number of ruptured AAAs in Gloucestershire during the 20 years of the program. There has been a significant reduction of men with an abnormal aorta, as the mean aortic diameter of the 65-year-old male has reduced over 20 years.

Advantages and pitfalls of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in high-risk patients

Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has been suggested for older men. Our aim was to determine the effect of participant selection on prevalence and treatment suitability. Men aged 65 to 75 years attending cardiology clinics composed the high-risk group; the control group was from the community. AAA screening was performed, with follow-up or surgery arranged. Four hundred eight of 651 (62.7%) high-risk men and 109 of 908 (45.0%; p< .0001) men attended from the community. In the high-risk patients, 40 AAAs were diagnosed, with a mean diameter of 41.4 mm (+/-10.4 mm). In the control group, 22 new AAAs were found, with an average size of 40.9 mm (+/-10.4 mm). Higher polypharmacy existed in the high-risk group (4.6+/-2.2 vs 2.3+/-2.0; p< .0001). More aneurysm patients were on dual-antiplatelet therapy (32.5% vs 15.4%; p= .048) compared with the overall high-risk group. In this group, three underwent surgery; one was anatomically unsuitable for endovascular repair and medically unfit for open repair. Two in the control group had surgery. A higher prevalence of AAA is encountered in high-risk men. Most aneurysms are small; however, a significant proportion of the aneurysms detected were of a size that would warrant repair. The decision to perform surgical repair is likely to be influenced by the comorbid medical conditions, which placed the patients in the high-risk category.

Can Induced Anxiety from a Negative Earlier Experience Influence Vascular Surgeons’ Statistical Decision-Making? A Randomized Field Experiment with an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Analog

BACKGROUND

Increasing detection, new screening recommendations, and popular press attention contribute to the rising prevalence of asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Evidence-based guidelines recommend the optimal time to operate is when the aneurysm is 5.5 cm in diameter. Smaller AAAs are periodically monitored with imaging. Recent events and emotional reactions to risk and uncertainty, including anxiety, can cause decision-making to diverge from cognitively based assessments. It is not known whether this applies to vascular surgeons making statistically-optimal, risky decisions. We tested whether an unexpected, recent negative event might influence vascular surgeons' decisions about a computer-simulation AAA-analog that includes statistical information.

STUDY DESIGN

We performed a randomized, computer-based field experiment with evidenced-based statistical information readily available on bursting probabilities. Participants included vascular surgeons with AAA operative experience attending two vascular surgery conferences held in 2005 (n=81). The intervention was a randomly assigned, anxiety-inducing, bursting balloon versus a nonbursting balloon before a statistical decision-making computer simulation. The main outcomes measure was real-time prospective choice to opt out of expanding AAA simulation. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the likelihood of opting out, while controlling for important covariates.

RESULTS

The experimental group was more likely to opt out (hazard ratio: 3.32; 95% CI: 1.25 to 8.81), even after controlling for initial anxiety levels, risk attitudes, uncertainty attitudes, use of statistical information, surgical experience, and demographics.

CONCLUSIONS

Experiencing a negative, potentially anxiety-provoking, preceding event can influence decision-making, even among experienced vascular surgeons who have ready access to statistical risk information.

Psychosocial impact of finding small aneurysms that are left untreated in patients previously operated on for ruptured aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

In patients with previous subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) undergoing follow up screening, the authors assessed the impact of finding but not treating very small aneurysms by comparing quality of life (QOL), anxiety, and depression between patients with a newly detected aneurysm that was left untreated (cases) and patients with a negative screening (controls) as this should be incorporated in the evaluation of effectiveness of screening.

METHODS

In patients with previous SAH undergoing screening for new aneurysms the authors compared QOL (SF-36, EURO-QOL, and a screening related questionnaire), anxiety, and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)) between cases and controls. Differences in scores on the SF-36, EURO-QOL, and HADS were assessed with Student's t test and differences in proportions of patients with HADS scores in the pathological range and screening related changes with chi2 analysis. The authors powered the study to detect a moderate, clinically relevant difference.

RESULTS

Thirty five cases and 34 controls were included. Trends for health related QOL, anxiety, depression, and consequences in daily life pointed in the same direction of a less favourable situation for cases but all effects were small, and did not reach statistical significance. On the screenings specific questionnaire, cases more often (but not statistically significant) reported changes in daily life.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors found no major or moderate impact on QOL, anxiety, and depression of the awareness of having an untreated aneurysm, which was detected at screening, although most items showed a trend towards more negative effects for cases. Minor effects on individual level cannot be excluded by this study.

Cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to develop a simulation model to assess the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in men.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted for different screening strategies in terms of age (60, 65, or 70 years) and risk profiles (all men or specific high-risk groups) of the screened population, and rescreening after 5 or 10 years. These data were analyzed in a Markov simulation cohort model.

RESULTS

The cost per life year gained for different screening strategies ranged from US 8,309 dollars to US 14,084 dollars and was estimated at US 10,474 dollars when 65-year-old men were screened once. Screening 60-year-old men was equally cost-effective, with the advantage of more life years gained. We demonstrated a trade-off between high prevalence of AAA and lower life expectancy, eliminating the expected benefits of screening high-risk groups such as smokers (US 10,695 dollars) or cardiovascular patients (US 10,392 dollars). Assuming general population utility resulted in a cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of US 13,900 dollars, whereas a hypothetical 5% reduction in utility among men with a screening-detected AAA raised the cost per QALY gained to US 75,100 dollars.

CONCLUSION

This Markov model, which was based on a systematic review of the literature, supplied information on the estimated cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies. Screening men for AAA may be cost-effective in the long-term. Different screening strategies and quality-of-life effects related to screening for AAA need to be evaluated in future clinical studies.

Is screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm bad for your health and well-being?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the present paper was to investigate whether screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) causes health-related quality of life to change in men or their partners.

METHODS

A cross-sectional case-control comparison was undertaken of men aged 65-83 years living in Perth, Western Australia, using questionnaires incorporating three validated instruments (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, EuroQol EQ-5D and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) as well as several independent questions about quality of life. The 2009 men who attended for ultrasound scans of the abdominal aorta completed a short prescreening questionnaire about their perception of their general health. Four hundred and ninety-eight men (157 with an AAA and 341 with a normal aorta) were sent two questionnaires for completion 12 months after screening, one for themselves and one for their partner, each being about the quality of life of the respondent.

RESULTS

Men with an AAA were more limited in performing physical activities than those with a normal aorta (t-test of means P = 0.04). After screening, men with an AAA were significantly less likely to have current pain or discomfort than those with a normal aorta (multivariate odds ratio: 0.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.3-0.9) and reported fewer visits to their doctor. The mean level of self-perceived general health increased for all men from before to after screening (from 63.4 to 65.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Apart from physical functioning, screening was not associated with decreases in health and well-being. A high proportion of men rated their health over the year after screening as being either the same or improved, regardless of whether or not they were found to have an AAA.

Low Quality of Life Prior to Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Possible Risk Factor for Negative Mental Effects

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect on quality of life (QOL) of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a population-based AAA screening program. Twenty-four patients with screening-detected AAA and 45 controls with normal aortic diameter were studied in a prospective, controlled, population-based study. Prior to and 12 months after the ultrasonography examination, all participants completed Short-Form 36 and at 12 months, 10 AAA-specific questions were added. Comparisons were made between the two groups (AAA patients and controls), within each group, and between the groups and norms for the general Swedish population in the same age interval. Our results showed that screening for AAA results in impairment of QOL among those who have the disease and who suffered a low QOL prior to screening. Among those who had an age-adjusted normal QOL prior to screening and who were found to have the disease, and among those who were found to have normal aortas, no negative effect on QOL was observed. Thus, low QOL before screening is a possible risk factor for negative mental effects of diagnosing an AAA by screening.

The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Opposing views have been published on the importance of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study was designed to assess whether or not such screening is beneficial.

METHODS

A population-based sample of men (n=67800) aged 65-74 years was enrolled, and each individual randomly allocated to either receive an invitation for an abdominal ultrasound scan (invited group, n=33839) or not (control group, n=33961). Men in whom abdominal aortic aneurysms (> or =3 cm in diameter) were detected were followed-up with repeat ultrasound scans for a mean of 4.1 years. Surgery was considered on specific criteria (diameter > or =5.5 cm, expansion > or =1 cm per year, symptoms). Mortality data were obtained from the Office of National Statistics, and an intention-to-treat analysis was based on cause of death. Quality of life was assessed with four standardised scales. The primary outcome measure was mortality related to abdominal aortic aneurysm.

FINDINGS

27147 of 33839 (80%) men in the invited group accepted the invitation to screening, and 1333 aneurysms were detected. There were 65 aneurysm-related deaths (absolute risk 0.19%) in the invited group, and 113 (0.33%) in the control group (risk reduction 42%, 95% CI 22-58; p=0.0002), with a 53% reduction (95% CI 30-64) in those who attended screening. 30-day mortality was 6% (24 of 414) after elective surgery for an aneurysm, and 37% (30 of 81) after emergency surgery.

INTERPRETATION

Our results provide reliable evidence of benefit from screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

A single normal ultrasonographic scan at age 65 years rules out significant aneurysm disease for life in men

BACKGROUND

Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) has been carried out in Gloucestershire since 1990. All men in the county are offered aortic ultrasonography in their 65th year. Men with an aortic diameter of less than 26 mm are considered 'normal' and no follow-up is arranged. The aim of this study was to ascertain if men with 'normal' aortic diameters at age 65 years ever develop a clinically significant aneurysm.

METHODS

A cohort study was performed on 223 65-year-old men who had an aorta of less than 26 mm in diameter in 1988. These men had repeat ultrasonography in 1993 and 2000. The causes of death in men who died during this interval were investigated.

RESULTS

Eight men were lost to follow-up. As far as it was possible to ascertain, none of the 86 men who died over the 12-year interval did so from ruptured AAA. There was no clinically significant increase in mean aortic diameter in the remaining 129 men who had three serial ultrasonographic scans over the 12-year interval.

CONCLUSION

A single, 'normal' ultrasound scan at age 65 years effectively rules out the risk of clinically significant aneurysm disease for life in men.

Optimal interval screening and surveillance of abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

to determine safe and optimal intervals of rescreening and surveillance for AAA.

METHODS

hospital-based mass screening of 6339 65-73-year-old men from 1994-98. 76.4% attended. One hundred and ninety-one (4%) had AAA53 cm. Twenty-four (0.5%) were initially >5 cm and referred for surgery, while the rest were offered annual control scans to check for expansion. Later, all 348 (7.5%) men who 3 to 5 years ago had an ectatic aorta (infrarenal aortic diameter of 25-29 mm or distal/renal aortic diameter ratio >1.2) were offered rescreening. Of these, 62 (18%) died before rescanning, while 248 of the survivors attended rescreening (87%). Furthermore, a random sample of 380 of those with non-ectatic aortas were offered rescreening. Of these, 49 (13%) died before rescreening (p=0.06), while 275 (83%) of the survivors attended re-screening.

RESULTS

none of the controls had developed AAA. Of those who initially had an 25-29 mm aorta, 29% had developed AAA (size range 30-48 mm) with expansion rates varying from 1.0 to 4.7 mm/year. Only 3.5% with a ratio >1.2 developed AAA (size range: 30-34 mm) with expansion rates from 1.3 to 2.4 mm/year. During the fourth year of surveillance some AAA initially sized below 3.5 cm expanded to above 5 cm, while some sized 3.5-3.9 cm did so during the second year, >4 cm did so during the first year of surveillance.

CONCLUSION

rescreening for AAA can be restricted to initially ectatic aortas sized 25-29 mm at 5-year intervals. Surveillance of small AAA can be restricted to 1-4 year intervals.

Psychological consequences of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm and conservative treatment of small abdominal aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To describe the potential psychological consequences of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).

METHODS

The participants were prospectively and randomly sampled from a randomised screening trial for AAA and asked to complete a validated generic and global anonymous quality of life (QL) questionnaire by self-assessment (ScreenQL). Material case-control study: ScreenQL was completed once by 168 (48%) of 350 non-responders to screening, 271 (81%) of 335 attenders before screening, 286 (85%) of 335 attenders after screening, 127 (85%) of 149 with a small AAA diagnosed at screening, and 231 (66%) of 350 who were randomised not to be offered screening for AAA (controls). Prospective study (paired data): 127 men having a small AAA diagnosed. Twenty-nine (81%) of 36 men operated after initial conservative treatment.

RESULTS

Initially, the QL score was 5% lower among men with a small AAA compared to the controls (p<0.05), mainly because of poorer health perception. The QL score declined significantly further to 7% below control values during the period of conservative treatment. This impairment was mainly due to a 21% and 15% reduction in scores relating to health perception and psychosomatic distress, respectively. However, all scores improved to control levels in patients operated on. The QL of attending men for screening was significantly lower than that of the controls and the attenders after the screening. No differences were noticed concerning the non-attenders.

CONCLUSION

The offer of screening causes transient psychological stress in subjects found not to have AAA. However, diagnosis of an AAA seems to impair QL permanently and progressively in conservatively treated cases. This impairment seems reversible by operation. Nevertheless, the impairment seems considerable, and must be considered in the management of AAA and in the final evaluation of screening for AAA.