Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Variant: 1 Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US aorta abdomen	Usually Appropriate	O
US duplex Doppler aorta abdomen	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢
Radiography abdomen and pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Aortography abdomen and pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
MRA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Yoo Jin Lee, MD^a; Ayaz Aghayev, MD^b; Ezana M. Azene, MD, PhD^c; Salman Bhatti, MD^d; Joshua C. Ewell, DO^e; Sandeep S. Hedgire, MD^f; A. Tuba Karagulle Kendi, MD^g; Esther S. H. Kim, MD, MPH^h; David S. Kirsch, MDⁱ; Prashant Nagpal, MD^j; Anil K. Pillai, MD^k; Beth Ripley, MD, PhD^l; Andrew Tannenbaum, MD^m; Molly E. W. Thiessen, MDⁿ; Richard Thomas, MD, MBBS^o; Sarah Woolsey, MD, MPH^p; Michael L. Steigner, MD^q.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
A. Aortography abdomen and pelvis

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
B. CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
C. CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
D. CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
E. CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
F. CTA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
G. MRA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
H. MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
I. MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
J. MRI abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
K. MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
L. MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
M. Radiography abdomen and pelvis

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
N. US aorta abdomen

Variant 1: Adult. Abdominal aortic aneurysm screening. Asymptomatic, with or without a family history of AAA or history of smoking.
O. US duplex Doppler aorta abdomen

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.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

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.	Collard M, Sutphin PD, Kalva SP, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Follow-up (Without Repair). J Am Coll Radiol 2019;16:S2-S6.
2.	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.
3.	Conlisk N, Forsythe RO, Hollis L, et al. Exploring the Biological and Mechanical Properties of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using USPIO MRI and Peak Tissue Stress: A Combined Clinical and Finite Element Study. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 10(5-6):489-498, 2017 Dec.
4.	Obel LM, Diederichsen AC, Steffensen FH, et al. Population-Based Risk Factors for Ascending, Arch, Descending, and Abdominal Aortic Dilations for 60-74-Year-Old Individuals. J Am Coll Cardiol. 78(3):201-211, 2021 07 20.
5.	Tillman K, Lee OD, Whitty K. Abdominal aortic aneurysm: an often asymptomatic and fatal men's health issue. Am j. men's health. 7(2):163-8, 2013 Mar.
6.	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.
7.	Moll FL, Powell JT, Fraedrich G, et al. Management of abdominal aortic aneurysms clinical practice guidelines of the European society for vascular surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011;41 Suppl 1:S1-S58.
8.	Guirguis-Blake JM, Beil TL, Senger CA, Coppola EL. Primary Care Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA. 322(22):2219-2238, 2019 12 10.
9.	Guirguis-Blake JM, Beil TL, Senger CA, Whitlock EP. 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.
10.	Schermerhorn M. A 66-year-old man with an abdominal aortic aneurysm: review of screening and treatment. JAMA 2009;302:2015-22.
11.	Norman PE, Jamrozik K, Lawrence-Brown MM, et al. Population based randomised controlled trial on impact of screening on mortality from abdominal aortic aneurysm. BMJ 2004;329:1259.
12.	Howell CM, Rabener MJ. Abdominal aortic aneurysm: A ticking time bomb. JAAPA. 29(3):32-6, 2016 Mar.
13.	Liisberg M, Diederichsen AC, Lindholt JS. Abdominal ultrasound-scanning versus non-contrast computed tomography as screening method for abdominal aortic aneurysm - a validation study from the randomized DANCAVAS study. BMC med. imaging. 17(1):14, 2017 02 14.
14.	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.
15.	Gordon JR, Wahls T, Carlos RC, Pipinos, II, Rosenthal GE, Cram P. Failure to recognize newly identified aortic dilations in a health care system with an advanced electronic medical record. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:21-7, W5.
16.	Borgbjerg J, Christensen HS, Al-Mashhadi R, et al. Ultra-low-dose non-contrast CT and CT angiography can be used interchangeably for assessing maximal abdominal aortic diameter. Acta Radiol Open 2022;11:20584601221132461.
17.	Tomee SM, Meijer CA, Kies DA, et al. Systematic approach towards reliable estimation of abdominal aortic aneurysm size by ultrasound imaging and CT. [Review]. BJS open. 5(1), 2021 01 08.
18.	Wanhainen A, Mani K, Golledge J. Surrogate Markers of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Progression. [Review]. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 36(2):236-44, 2016 Feb.
19.	Cieri E, Simonte G, Costarelli D, et al. Computed Tomography Postprocessing for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Lumen Recognition in Unenhanced Examinations. Ann Vasc Surg. 60:407-414, 2019 Oct.
20.	Kolipaka A, Illapani VS, Kenyhercz W, et al. Quantification of abdominal aortic aneurysm stiffness using magnetic resonance elastography and its comparison to aneurysm diameter. J Vasc Surg. 64(4):966-74, 2016 Oct.
21.	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.
22.	Zhu C, Cao L, Wen Z, et al. Surveillance of abdominal aortic aneurysm using accelerated 3D non-contrast black-blood cardiovascular magnetic resonance with compressed sensing (CS-DANTE-SPACE). J Cardiovasc Magn Reson. 21(1):66, 2019 10 28.
23.	Ali MU, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Miller J, et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in asymptomatic adults. [Review]. J Vasc Surg. 64(6):1855-1868, 2016 Dec.
24.	Duncan A, Maslen C, Gibson C, et al. Ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in high-risk women. British Journal of Surgery. 108(10):1192-1198, 2021 10 23.
25.	Svensjo S, Bjorck M, Wanhainen A. Editor's choice: five-year outcomes in men screened for abdominal aortic aneurysm at 65 years of age: a population-based cohort study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 47(1):37-44, 2014 Jan.
26.	Isselbacher EM, Preventza O, Hamilton Black Iii J, et al. 2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease: A Report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2022;80:e223-e393.
27.	LeFevre ML, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 161(4):281-90, 2014 Aug 19.
28.	Owens DK, Davidson KW, Krist AH, et al. Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 322(22):2211-2218, 2019 12 10.
29.	Ruff AL, Teng K, Hu B, Rothberg MB. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms in outpatient primary care clinics. Am J Med. 128(3):283-8, 2015 Mar.
30.	Hartshorne TC, McCollum CN, Earnshaw JJ, Morris J, Nasim A. Ultrasound measurement of aortic diameter in a national screening programme. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011;42:195-9.
31.	Watson JDB, Gifford SM, Bandyk DF. Aortic aneurysm screening using duplex ultrasound: Choosing wisely who to examine. [Review]. Semin Vasc Surg. 33(3-4):54-59, 2020 Dec.
32.	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.
33.	Bihari P, Shelke A, Nwe TH, et al. Strain measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysm with real-time 3D ultrasound speckle tracking. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 45(4):315-23, 2013 Apr.
34.	Taniguchi R, Hoshina K, Hosaka A, et al. Strain analysis of wall motion in abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Dis 2014;7:393-8.
35.	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.
36.	Cho IJ, Lee J, Park J, et al. Feasibility and accuracy of a novel automated three-dimensional ultrasonographic analysis system for abdominal aortic aneurysm: comparison with two-dimensional ultrasonography and computed tomography. Cardiovasc. ultrasound. 18(1):24, 2020 Jul 01.
37.	Derwich W, Wittek A, Pfister K, et al. High Resolution Strain Analysis Comparing Aorta and Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm with Real Time Three Dimensional Speckle Tracking Ultrasound. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 51(2):187-93, 2016 Feb.
38.	Ghulam QM, Kilaru S, Ou SS, Sillesen H. Clinical validation of three-dimensional ultrasound for abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 71(1):180-188, 2020 01.
39.	Lowe C, Ghulam Q, Bredahl K, et al. Three-dimensional Ultrasound in the Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: A Topical Review. [Review]. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 52(4):466-474, 2016 Oct.
40.	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.