atherosclerosis is one of most common cause of aortic ds,screening of abdominal aorta in vulnerable population is very useful for prevention and early detection of future omplication.
2. AAA
• Definition – increase in size of abdominal aorta to > 3cm in diameter
• MC form of aortic aneurysms
• Incidence – 3.9% to 7.2% of men and 1.0% to 1.3% of women aged 50
years or older
• Prevalence - M > F
• Strong association with cigarette smoking
• 20 % familial
• MC site of AAA – infrarenal aorta ( >80%)
2
3. WHY TO SCREEN ?
• Primary risk associated with AAA – rupture (sudden & fatal)
• The annual risk for rupture
SIZE OF AAA ANNUAL RISK OF RUPTURE
3 – 3.9 cm 0%
4– 4.9 cm 1%
5 – 5.9 cm 11%
Guirguis-Blake JM et al. Ultrasonography screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a systematic evidence
review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:321-9
3
4. • 59% to 83% of patients with AAA rupture die before
hospitalization
• 40% - Operative mortality (in- hospital or 30-day)
• 10% to 25% of persons with a ruptured AAA survive
• Almost all deaths from rupture occur after 65 years of age
• Most deaths in women occur after 80 years of age
Guirguis-Blake JM et al. Ultrasonography screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms: a systematic evidence
review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160:321-9
4
5. AAA IMAGING MODALITIES
• Abdominal ultrasound- almost 100% sensitive & specific in
detecting AAA
• Abdominal CT – extremely accurate in both detection and
measurement of AAA
• MRA – high accuracy in detection, measurement & planning
repair of AAA
• Screening of AAA- Ultrasound >> CT because of cost
effectiveness, avoidance of exposure to radiation & contrast
• CT – preferred for AAA variants (inflammatory AAAs & mycotic
aneurysms)
5
8. • Meta analysis of the 4 RCTs 40 % reduction in AAA specific
mortality in elderly men
• 2.7 % reduction in all-cause mortality
Takagi H et al. The last judgment upon abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Int J Cardiol
2013;167:2331e2
8
9. MASS
• Multicenter aneurysm screening study
• 46 deaths from AAA were prevented by screening 10,000 men
• 217 men would have to be screened to prevent one death from AAA
• Screening reduced the risk of AAA death by 42%
• Number of elective AAA repairs conducted in the screening group
was twice that of the control group
• Number of emergency repairs - halved
Ashton HA et al. The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of
abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled
trial. Lancet 2002;360:1531
9
10. ABDOMINAL ULTRASOUND SCREENING
• In MASS trial - inner to inner (ITI) wall measurement was used
• In Gloucestershire trial - outer margin of the anterior wall to
the inner margin of the posterior wall (leading edge to leading
edge (LELE) was measured
• In Huntingdon screening trial - outer to outer diameter (OTO)
was used
10
11. 1.Statistics Sweden. Retrieved December 2013 from www.scb.se
2.Anjum A et al. Explaining the decrease in mortality from abdominal
aortic aneurysm rupture. Br J Surg 2012;99:637
• Reduced smoking rates seem to markedly coincide with falling rates of AAA prevalence
1
• Increased rates of elective AAA repair- reduction in overall AAA related mortality2
11
12. ETHICS AND HARMS OF SCREENING
• The risk of death from elective repair- 1 in 10,000 men invited
to screening
• The risk of death following repair in incidentally detected AAAs
- higher than for screening detected AAAs
• Mild transient reduction in quality of life
12
13. Svensjo S et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in 65-Year-old men remains cost-
effective with contemporary epidemiology and management. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg
2014;47:357
13
19. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS
• ACC & AHA - 1-time screening for AAA with physical examination
and ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 years who have ever
smoked and in men aged 60 years or older who are the sibling or
offspring of a person with AAA
• These organizations do not recommend screening for AAA in men
who have never smoked or in women
• Society for Vascular Surgery - 1-time ultrasonography screening for
AAA in men aged 55 years or older with a family history of AAA, all
men aged 65 years or older, and women aged 65 years or older who
have smoked or have a family history of AAA
• American College of Preventive Medicine - 1-time screening in men
aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked; it does not recommend
routine screening in women
19
20. • Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery - Ultrasonography screening
for AAA in men aged 65 to 75 years who are candidates for surgery
and willing to participate
• In individualized cases, some women older than 65 years with
multiple risk factors (smoking history, cerebrovascular disease, or
family history) may be considered for screening
• European Society for Vascular Surgery - Men should be screened for
AAA with a single ultrasonography at age 65 years
• Screening should be considered at an earlier age in men at higher
risk (those who smoke, have other cardiovascular disease, or have a
family history)
• Screening in older women - does not reduce the incidence of
aneurysm rupture but that screening women who smoke may require
20
21. TAKE HOME MESSAGE
• AAA – most dreaded complication is rupture
• Ultrasound- preferred modality for screening
• AAA is strongly associated with smoking
• Screening for AAA in elderly men and high risk women may be
beneficial for risk stratification for rupture risk
• For serial monitoring and planning early repair
• Cost effectiveness should be considered
21
In its simplest form the hazard ratio can be interpreted as the chance of an event occurring in the treatment arm divided by the chance of the event occurring in the control arm, or vice versa, of a study. The resolution of these endpoints are usually depicted using Kaplan-Meier survival curves
A hazard ratio of one means equivalence in the hazard rate of the two groups,
– 3 to 5 yrs follow up
All cause- 11-15 yrs follow up
after 13 years,
Gloucestershire trial, UK
Historical and contemporary AAA prevalence rates pre- sented with time trends in smoking. The prevalence of AAA in 65 year old men and 70 year old women in Sweden as determined at 1980 and 2010 (right y-axis),9,35,66 plotted together with rates of daily smokers in Sweden over the same time period (left y-axis). Source: Statistics Sweden.83
(probably due to different timing of surgery, higher rates of comorbidity, and less standardized care
Two way sensitivity analysis of AAA screening cost- effectiveness boundaries as a function of AAA prevalence and degree of incidental detection of AAA in the population. Data is based on a willingness to pay threshold of V25,000 per QALY and follow-up 13 years after screening. Based on data from Svensjö et al.
#Grey area indicates within which boundaries screening is cost-effective with willingness to pay of V25,000 per QALY gained. For reference, dotted vertical lines indicate range for contemporary reported AAA prevalence among 65 year old men (1.5e1.7%),9,46,84 and horizontal dotted lines indicate the docu- mented range (35e46%)6,21,22 of incidental detection extracted from three AAA screening RCTs with long-term follow up.
Grade Definition Suggestions for Practice
A The USPSTF recommends the service. There is high certainty that the net benefit is substantial. Offer or provide this service.
B The USPSTF recommends the service. There is high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial. Offer or provide this service.
C The USPSTF recommends selectively offering or providing this service to individual patients based on professional judgment and patient preferences. There is at least moderate certainty that the net benefit is small. Offer or provide this service for selected patients depending on individual circumstances.
D The USPSTF recommends against the service. There is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits. Discourage the use of this service.
I
Statement The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the service. Evidence is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. Read the clinical considerations section of USPSTF Recommendation Statement. If the service is offered, patients should understand the uncertainty about the balance of benefits and harms.
Early Intervention for Small (3.0 to 5.4 cm) AAAs. In total, 8 RCTs assessed the effects of early surgery compared with surveillance or pharmacotherapy compared with pla- cebo for small AAAs. Two good-quality RCTs (UKSAT [United Kingdom Small Aneurysm Trial] and the ADAM [Aneurysm Detection and Management] trial) compared early open surgery with surveillance for AAAs measuring 4.0 to 5.4 cm (22, 23). In both trials, early open surgery (HR, 0.94 [CI, 0.75 to 1.17]) and surveillance for all-cause mortality (relative risk, 1.21 [CI, 0.95 to 1.54]) did not statistically significantly differ after approximately 5 year