Leach Joseph R, Zhu Chengcheng, Mitsouras Dimitrios, Saloner David, Hope Michael D
University of California, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2021 Feb;11(2):823-830. doi: 10.21037/qims-20-888.
Accurate and reproducible measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) size is an essential component of patient management, and most reliably performed at CT using a multiplanar reformat (MPR) strategy. This approach is not universal, however. This study aims to characterize the measurement error present in routine clinical assessment of AAAs and the potential clinical ramifications. Patients were included if they had AAA assessed by CT and/or MRI at two time points at least 6 months apart. Clinical maximal AAA diameter, assessed by non-standardized methods, was abstracted from the radiology report at each time point and compared to the reference aneurysm diameter measured using a MPR strategy. Discrepancies between clinical and reference diameters, and associated aneurysm enlargement rates were analyzed. Two hundred thirty patients were included, with average follow-up 3.3±2.5 years. When compared to MPR-derived diameters, clinical aneurysm measurement inaccuracy was, on average, 3.3 mm. Broad limits of agreement were found for both clinical diameters [-6.7 to +6.5 mm] and aneurysm enlargement rates [-4.6 to +4.2 mm/year] when compared to MPR-based measures. Of 78 AAAs measuring 5-6 cm by the MPR method, 21 (26.9%) were misclassified by the clinical measurement with respect to a common repair threshold (5.5 cm), of which 5 were misclassified as below, and 16 were misclassified as above the threshold. The clinical use of non-standardized AAA measurement strategies can lead to incorrect classification of AAAs as larger or smaller than the commonly accepted repair threshold of 5.5 cm and can induce large errors in quantification of aneurysm enlargement rate.
准确且可重复地测量腹主动脉瘤(AAA)大小是患者管理的重要组成部分,并且在CT上使用多平面重组(MPR)策略进行测量最为可靠。然而,这种方法并不普遍。本研究旨在描述AAA常规临床评估中存在的测量误差及其潜在的临床影响。如果患者在至少相隔6个月的两个时间点通过CT和/或MRI评估了AAA,则纳入研究。通过非标准化方法评估的临床最大AAA直径从每个时间点的放射学报告中提取,并与使用MPR策略测量的参考动脉瘤直径进行比较。分析临床直径与参考直径之间的差异以及相关的动脉瘤扩大率。纳入了230例患者,平均随访3.3±2.5年。与MPR得出的直径相比,临床动脉瘤测量的平均不准确性为3.3毫米。与基于MPR的测量相比,临床直径[-6.7至+6.5毫米]和动脉瘤扩大率[-4.6至+4.2毫米/年]均发现了较宽的一致性界限。在通过MPR方法测量为5-6厘米的78个AAA中,21个(26.9%)在临床测量中关于常见的修复阈值(5.5厘米)被错误分类,其中5个被错误分类为低于阈值,16个被错误分类为高于阈值。非标准化AAA测量策略的临床应用可能导致将AAA错误分类为大于或小于普遍接受的5.5厘米修复阈值,并可能在动脉瘤扩大率的量化中产生较大误差。