AC Portal
Document Navigator

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Follow-up (Without Repair)

Variant: 1   Asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance (without repair).
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
US duplex Doppler aorta abdomen Usually Appropriate O
MRA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast Usually Appropriate O
CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast Usually Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate (Disagreement) O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast May Be Appropriate ☢☢☢☢
Aortography abdomen Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢
Radiography chest abdomen pelvis Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢

Panel Members
Patrick D. Sutphin, MD, PhDa; Michael Collard, MD, MAb; Sanjeeva P. Kalva, c; Bill S. Majdalany, MDd; Jeremy D. Collins, MDe; Jens Eldrup-Jorgensen, MDf; Christopher J. Francois, MDg; Suvranu Ganguli, MDh; Andrew J. Gunn, MDi; A. Tuba Karagulle Kendi, MDj; Minhaj S. Khaja, MD, MBAk; Piotr Obara, MDl; Stephen P. Reis, MDm; Kanupriya Vijay, MD, MBBSn; Karin E. Dill, MDo.
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Special Imaging Considerations
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance (without repair).
Variant 1: Asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance (without repair).
A. US Duplex Doppler Aorta Abdomen
Variant 1: Asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance (without repair).
B. CTA Abdomen and Pelvis
Variant 1: Asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance (without repair).
C. CT Abdomen and Pelvis
Variant 1: Asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance (without repair).
D. MRA Abdomen and Pelvis
Variant 1: Asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance (without repair).
E. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis
Variant 1: Asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance (without repair).
F. Aortography Abdomen
Variant 1: Asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance (without repair).
G. Radiography Chest Abdomen Pelvis
Summary of Highlights
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.
Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

☢

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”
References
1. Ahmed R, Ghoorah K, Kunadian V. Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms and Risk Factors for Adverse Events. [Review]. Cardiol Rev. 24(2):88-93, 2016 Mar-Apr.
2. Lim J, Wolff J, Rodd CD, Cooper DG, Earnshaw JJ. Outcome in Men with a Screen-detected Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Who are not Fit for Intervention. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 50(6):732-6, 2015 Dec.
3. Chun KC, Teng KY, Van Spyk EN, Carson JG, Lee ES. Outcomes of an abdominal aortic aneurysm screening program. J Vasc Surg. 57(2):376-81, 2013 Feb.
4. Giardina S, Pane B, Spinella G, et al. An economic evaluation of an abdominal aortic aneurysm screening program in Italy. J Vasc Surg. 54(4):938-46, 2011 Oct.
5. Macdonald AJ, Faleh O, Welch G, Kettlewell S. Missed opportunities for the detection of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 35(6):698-700, 2008 Jun.
6. Schmidt T, Muhlberger N, Chemelli-Steingruber IE, et al. Benefit, risks and cost-effectiveness of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm. [Review] [50 refs]. ROFO Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Nuklearmed. 182(7):573-80, 2010 Jul.
7. Stather PW, Dattani N, Bown MJ, Earnshaw JJ, Lees TA. International variations in AAA screening. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 45(3):231-4, 2013 Mar.
8. Wild JB, Stather PW, Biancari F, et al. A multicentre observational study of the outcomes of screening detected sub-aneurysmal aortic dilatation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 45(2):128-34, 2013 Feb.
9. Al-Thani H, El-Menyar A, Shabana A, Tabeb A, Al-Sulaiti M, Almalki A. Incidental abdominal aneurysms: a retrospective study of 13,115 patients who underwent a computed tomography scan. Angiology. 65(5):388-95, 2014 May.
10. Dell'Atti L.. Incidence of abdominal aortic aneurysm during diagnostic ultrasound for urologic disease: our experience. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 84(4):230-3, 2012 Dec.
11. Khashram M, Jones GT, Roake JA. Prevalence of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in a population undergoing computed tomography colonography in Canterbury, New Zealand. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 50(2):199-205, 2015 Aug.
12. Trompeter AJ, Paremain GP. Incidental abdominal aortic aneurysm on lumbosacral magnetic resonance imaging - a case series. Magn Reson Imaging. 28(3):455-7, 2010 Apr.
13. Claridge R, Arnold S, Morrison N, van Rij AM. Measuring abdominal aortic diameters in routine abdominal computed tomography scans and implications for abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. J Vasc Surg. 65(6):1637-1642, 2017 06.
14. Lo RC, Schermerhorn ML. Abdominal aortic aneurysms in women. [Review]. J Vasc Surg. 63(3):839-44, 2016 Mar.
15. Chaikof EL, Dalman RL, Eskandari MK, et al. The Society for Vascular Surgery practice guidelines on the care of patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 67(1):2-77.e2, 2018 01.
16. Hirsch AT, Haskal ZJ, Hertzer NR, et al. ACC/AHA 2005 Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with peripheral arterial disease (lower extremity, renal, mesenteric, and abdominal aortic): a collaborative report from the American Association for Vascular Surgery/Society for Vascular Surgery, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society for Vascular Medicine and Biology, Society of Interventional Radiology, and the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Develop Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease): endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Society for Vascular Nursing; TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus; and Vascular Disease Foundation. [Review] [1308 refs]. Circulation. 113(11):e463-654, 2006 Mar 21.Circulation. 113(11):e463-654, 2006 Mar 21.
17. Kitagawa A, Mastracci TM, von Allmen R, Powell JT. The role of diameter versus volume as the best prognostic measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 58(1):258-65, 2013 Jul.
18. RESCAN Collaborators, Bown MJ, Sweeting MJ, Brown LC, Powell JT, Thompson SG. Surveillance intervals for small abdominal aortic aneurysms: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 309(8):806-13, 2013 Feb 27.
19. Mell MW, Baker LC. Payer status, preoperative surveillance, and rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the US Medicare population. Ann Vasc Surg. 28(6):1378-83, 2014 Aug.
20. Thompson AR, Cooper JA, Ashton HA, Hafez H. Growth rates of small abdominal aortic aneurysms correlate with clinical events. Br J Surg. 97(1):37-44, 2010 Jan.
21. van Walraven C, Wong J, Morant K, et al. Radiographic monitoring of incidental abdominal aortic aneurysms: a retrospective population-based cohort study. Open Med. 5(2):e67-76, 2011.
22. Cao P, De Rango P, Verzini F, et al. Comparison of surveillance versus aortic endografting for small aneurysm repair (CAESAR): results from a randomised trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011;41:13-25.
23. Ouriel K, Clair DG, Kent KC, Zarins CK, Positive Impact of Endovascular Options for treating Aneurysms Early (PIVOTAL) Investigators. Endovascular repair compared with surveillance for patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 51(5):1081-7, 2010 May.
24. Francois CJ, Skulborstad EP, Majdalany BS, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Interventional Planning and Follow-Up. J Am Coll Radiol 2018;15:S2-S12.
25. American College of Radiology. ACR–NASCI–SIR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Body Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=164+&releaseId=2.
26. Hafez H, Druce PS, Ashton HA. Abdominal aortic aneurysm development in men following a "normal" aortic ultrasound scan. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 36(5):553-8, 2008 Nov.
27. Keefer A, Hislop S, Singh MJ, Gillespie D, Illig KA. The influence of aneurysm size on anatomic suitability for endovascular repair. J Vasc Surg. 52(4):873-7, 2010 Oct.
28. Beales L, Wolstenhulme S, Evans JA, West R, Scott DJ. Reproducibility of ultrasound measurement of the abdominal aorta. [Review]. Br J Surg. 98(11):1517-25, 2011 Nov.
29. Gurtelschmid M, Bjorck M, Wanhainen A. Comparison of three ultrasound methods of measuring the diameter of the abdominal aorta. Br J Surg. 101(6):633-6, 2014 May.
30. Kauffmann C, Tang A, Therasse E, et al. Measurements and detection of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth: Accuracy and reproducibility of a segmentation software. Eur J Radiol. 81(8):1688-94, 2012 Aug.
31. Wanhainen A, Mani K, Golledge J. Surrogate Markers of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Progression. [Review]. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 36(2):236-44, 2016 Feb.
32. Sweeting MJ, Thompson SG, Brown LC, Powell JT, RESCAN collaborators. Meta-analysis of individual patient data to examine factors affecting growth and rupture of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. [Review]. Br J Surg. 99(5):655-65, 2012 May.
33. Labruto F, Blomqvist L, Swedenborg J. Imaging the intraluminal thrombus of abdominal aortic aneurysms: techniques, findings, and clinical implications. [Review]. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 22(8):1069-75; quiz 1075, 2011 Aug.
34. Martufi G, Forneris A, Appoo JJ, Di Martino ES. Is There a Role for Biomechanical Engineering in Helping to Elucidate the Risk Profile of the Thoracic Aorta?. [Review]. Ann Thorac Surg. 101(1):390-8, 2016 Jan.
35. American College of Radiology. Manual on Contrast Media. Available at: http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/Contrast-Manual.
36. Goshima S, Kanematsu M, Kondo H, et al. Preoperative planning for endovascular aortic repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms: feasibility of nonenhanced MR angiography versus contrast-enhanced CT angiography. Radiology. 267(3):948-55, 2013 Jun.
37. Ichihashi S, Marugami N, Tanaka T, et al. Preliminary experience with superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced dynamic magnetic resonance imaging and comparison with contrast-enhanced computed tomography in endoleak detection after endovascular aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 58(1):66-72, 2013 Jul.
38. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked.  Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.