Pulsatile Abdominal Mass, Suspected Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Variant: 1 Pulsatile abdominal mass, suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US aorta abdomen	Usually Appropriate	O
MRA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRA abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CTA abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTA abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
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	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	☢☢☢☢
US intravascular aorta abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Aortography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography abdomen and pelvis	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

David Wang, ^a; Jody Shen, MD^b; Bill S. Majdalany, MD^c; Minhaj S. Khaja, MD, MBA^d; Salman Bhatti, MD^e; Maros Ferencik, MD, PhD, MCR^f; Suvranu Ganguli, MD^g; Andrew J. Gunn, MD^h; John F. Heitner, MDⁱ; Amer M. Johri, MD, MSc^j; Piotr Obara, MD^k; Robert Ohle, MD^l; Mehran M. Sadeghi, MD^m; Marc Schermerhorn, MDⁿ; Jeffrey J. Siracuse, MD, MBA^o; Scott D. Steenburg, MD^p; Patrick D. Sutphin, MD, PhD^q; Kanupriya Vijay, MD, MBBS^r; Kathleen Waite, MD^s; Michael L. Steigner, MD^t.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Pulsatile abdominal mass, suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Initial imaging.

Variant 1: Pulsatile abdominal mass, suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Initial imaging.
A. Aortography abdomen

Variant 1: Pulsatile abdominal mass, suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Initial imaging.
B. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Pulsatile abdominal mass, suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Initial imaging.
C. CTA Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Pulsatile abdominal mass, suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Initial imaging.
D. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 1: Pulsatile abdominal mass, suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Initial imaging.
E. MRA Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Pulsatile abdominal mass, suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Initial imaging.
F. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Pulsatile abdominal mass, suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Initial imaging.
G. Radiography Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Pulsatile abdominal mass, suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Initial imaging.
H. US Aorta Abdomen

Variant 1: Pulsatile abdominal mass, suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Initial imaging.
I. US Intravascular 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.

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.	Fink HA, Lederle FA, Roth CS, Bowles CA, Nelson DB, Haas MA. The accuracy of physical examination to detect abdominal aortic aneurysm. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:833-6.
2.	Lederle FA, Simel DL. The rational clinical examination. Does this patient have abdominal aortic aneurysm? JAMA 1999;281:77-82.
3.	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.
4.	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.
5.	van Walraven C, Wong J, Morant K, Jennings A, Jetty P, Forster AJ. Incidence, follow-up, and outcomes of incidental abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 52(2):282-9.e1-2, 2010 Aug.
6.	Johnston KW, Rutherford RB, Tilson MD, Shah DM, Hollier L, Stanley JC. Suggested standards for reporting on arterial aneurysms. Subcommittee on Reporting Standards for Arterial Aneurysms, Ad Hoc Committee on Reporting Standards, Society for Vascular Surgery and North American Chapter, International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery. J Vasc Surg. 1991; 13(3):452-458.
7.	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.
8.	Erbel R, Aboyans V, Boileau C, et al. 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of aortic diseases: Document covering acute and chronic aortic diseases of the thoracic and abdominal aorta of the adult. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Aortic Diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 35(41):2873-926, 2014 Nov 01.
9.	Sakalihasan N, Michel JB, Katsargyris A, et al. Abdominal aortic aneurysms. [Review]. Nat Rev Dis Prim. 4(1):34, 2018 10 18.
10.	Wanhainen A, Verzini F, Van Herzeele I, et al. Editor's Choice - European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-iliac Artery Aneurysms. European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery. 57(1):8-93, 2019 Jan.Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 57(1):8-93, 2019 Jan.
11.	Lo RC, Schermerhorn ML. Abdominal aortic aneurysms in women. [Review]. J Vasc Surg. 63(3):839-44, 2016 Mar.
12.	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.
13.	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.
14.	Long A, Rouet L, Lindholt JS, Allaire E. Measuring the maximum diameter of native abdominal aortic aneurysms: review and critical analysis. [Review]. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 43(5):515-24, 2012 May.
15.	Lederle FA, Wilson SE, Johnson GR, et al. Variability in measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group. J Vasc Surg 1995;21:945-52.
16.	Fadel BM, Mohty D, Kazzi BE, et al. Ultrasound imaging of the abdominal aorta: A comprehensive review. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2021;34:1119-36.
17.	Hiratzka LF, Bakris GL, Beckman JA, et al. 2010 ACCF/AHA/AATS/ACR/ASA/SCA/SCAI/SIR/STS/SVM guidelines for the diagnosis and management of patients with Thoracic Aortic Disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American College of Radiology, American Stroke Association, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Interventional Radiology, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and Society for Vascular Medicine. Circulation 2010;121:e266-369.
18.	Ihara T, Komori K, Yamamoto K, Kobayashi M, Banno H, Kodama A. Three-dimensional workstation is useful for measuring the correct size of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameters. Ann Vasc Surg. 27(2):154-61, 2013 Feb.
19.	Dugas A, Therasse E, Kauffmann C, et al. Reproducibility of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter measurement and growth evaluation on axial and multiplanar computed tomography reformations. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 35(4):779-87, 2012 Aug.
20.	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.
21.	Ruff A, Patel K, Joyce JR, Gornik HL, Rothberg MB. The use of pre-existing CT imaging in screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Vasc Med. 21(6):515-519, 2016 12.
22.	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.
23.	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.
24.	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.
25.	Goldstein SA, Evangelista A, Abbara S, et al. Multimodality imaging of diseases of the thoracic aorta in adults: from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging: endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. [Review]. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 28(2):119-82, 2015 Feb.
26.	Hallett RL, Ullery BW, Fleischmann D. Abdominal aortic aneurysms: pre- and post-procedural imaging. [Review]. Abdominal Radiology. 43(5):1044-1066, 2018 05.
27.	Rengier F, Geisbusch P, Vosshenrich R, et al. State-of-the-art aortic imaging: part I - fundamentals and perspectives of CT and MRI. Vasa 2013;42:395-412.
28.	Evangelista A.. Imaging aortic aneurysmal disease. [Review]. Heart. 100(12):909-15, 2014 Jun.
29.	Agrawal MD, Oliveira GR, Kalva SP, Pinho DF, Arellano RS, Sahani DV. Prospective Comparison of Reduced-Iodine-Dose Virtual Monochromatic Imaging Dataset From Dual-Energy CT Angiography With Standard-Iodine-Dose Single-Energy CT Angiography for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 207(6):W125-W132, 2016 Dec.
30.	Patino M, Parakh A, Lo GC, et al. Virtual Monochromatic Dual-Energy Aortoiliac CT Angiography With Reduced Iodine Dose: A Prospective Randomized Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 212(2):467-474, 2019 02.
31.	Truijers M, Kurvers HA, Bredie SJ, Oyen WJ, Blankensteijn JD. In vivo imaging of abdominal aortic aneurysms: increased FDG uptake suggests inflammation in the aneurysm wall. J Endovasc Ther. 2008; 15(4):462-467.
32.	Murakami M, Morikage N, Samura M, Yamashita O, Suehiro K, Hamano K. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography for diagnosis of infected aortic aneurysms. Ann Vasc Surg. 28(3):575-8, 2014 Apr.
33.	Jalalzadeh H, Indrakusuma R, Planken RN, Legemate DA, Koelemay MJ, Balm R. Inflammation as a Predictor of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Growth and Rupture: A Systematic Review of Imaging Biomarkers. [Review]. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 52(3):333-42, 2016 Sep.
34.	Hartung MP, Grist TM, Francois CJ. Magnetic resonance angiography: current status and future directions. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2011;13:19.
35.	Hope MD, Hope TA, Zhu C, et al. Vascular Imaging With Ferumoxytol as a Contrast Agent. AJR 2015;205:W366-73.
36.	Nguyen KL, Yoshida T, Kathuria-Prakash N, et al. Multicenter Safety and Practice for Off-Label Diagnostic Use of Ferumoxytol in MRI. Radiology 2019;293:554-64.
37.	van Hout MJ, Scholte AJ, Juffermans JF, et al. How to Measure the Aorta Using MRI: A Practical Guide. J Magn Reson Imaging 2020;52:971-77.
38.	Elefteriades JA, Mukherjee SK, Mojibian H. Discrepancies in Measurement of the Thoracic Aorta: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol 2020;76:201-17.
39.	Schulz-Menger J, Bluemke DA, Bremerich J, et al. Standardized image interpretation and post-processing in cardiovascular magnetic resonance - 2020 update : Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (SCMR): Board of Trustees Task Force on Standardized Post-Processing. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2020;22:19.
40.	Zhu C, Tian B, Leach JR, et al. Non-contrast 3D black blood MRI for abdominal aortic aneurysm surveillance: comparison with CT angiography. European Radiology. 27(5):1787-1794, 2017 May.Eur Radiol. 27(5):1787-1794, 2017 May.
41.	Rubano E, Mehta N, Caputo W, Paladino L, Sinert R. Systematic review: emergency department bedside ultrasonography for diagnosing suspected abdominal aortic aneurysm. Acad Emerg Med 2013;20:128-38.
42.	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.
43.	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.
44.	NICE Guideline Updates Team. Imaging techniques to diagnose abdominal aortic aneurysms: Abdominal aortic aneurysm: diagnosis and management: Evidence review B. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (UK); 2020.
45.	Blaivas M, Theodoro D. Frequency of incomplete abdominal aorta visualization by emergency department bedside ultrasound. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:103-5.
46.	Matthews EO, Pinchbeck J, Elmore K, Jones RE, Moxon JV, Golledge J. The reproducibility of measuring maximum abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter from ultrasound images. Ultrasound J 2021;13:13.
47.	Borgbjerg J, Bogsted M, Lindholt JS, Behr-Rasmussen C, Horlyck A, Frokjaer JB. Superior Reproducibility of the Leading to Leading Edge and Inner to Inner Edge Methods in the Ultrasound Assessment of Maximum Abdominal Aortic Diameter. European Journal of Vascular & Endovascular Surgery. 55(2):206-213, 2018 Feb.
48.	Chiu KW, Ling L, Tripathi V, Ahmed M, Shrivastava V. Ultrasound measurement for abdominal aortic aneurysm screening: a direct comparison of the three leading methods. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2014;47:367-73.
49.	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.
50.	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.
51.	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.
52.	Thapar A, Cheal D, Hopkins T, Ward S, Shalhoub J, Yusuf SW. Internal or external wall diameter for abdominal aortic aneurysm screening? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2010;92:503-5.
53.	AIUM practice guideline for the performance of diagnostic and screening ultrasound examinations of the abdominal aorta in adults. J Ultrasound Med 2011;30:121-6.
54.	Foo FJ, Hammond CJ, Goldstone AR, et al. Agreement between computed tomography and ultrasound on abdominal aortic aneurysms and implications on clinical decisions. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2011;42:608-14.
55.	Manning BJ, Kristmundsson T, Sonesson B, Resch T. Abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter: a comparison of ultrasound measurements with those from standard and three-dimensional computed tomography reconstruction. J Vasc Surg. 2009; 50(2):263-268.
56.	Sprouse LR, 2nd, Meier GH, 3rd, Lesar CJ, et al. Comparison of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements obtained with ultrasound and computed tomography: Is there a difference? J Vasc Surg 2003;38:466-71; discussion 71-2.
57.	Bredahl K, Sandholt B, Lonn L, et al. Three-dimensional ultrasound evaluation of small asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 49(3):289-96, 2015 Mar.
58.	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.
59.	van Essen JA, Gussenhoven EJ, van der Lugt A, et al. Accurate assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm with intravascular ultrasound scanning: validation with computed tomographic angiography. J Vasc Surg 1999;29:631-8.
60.	Garret HE, Jr., Abdullah AH, Hodgkiss TD, Burgar SR. Intravascular ultrasound aids in the performance of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg 2003;37:615-8.
61.	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.