Radiographic monitoring of incidental abdominal aortic aneurysms: a retrospective population-based cohort study.

Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal Pub Date : 2011-01-01 Epub Date: 2011-04-12
Carl van Walraven, Jenna Wong, Kareem Morant, Alison Jennings, Peter C Austin, Prasad Jetty, Alan J Forster
{"title":"Radiographic monitoring of incidental abdominal aortic aneurysms: a retrospective population-based cohort study.","authors":"Carl van Walraven, Jenna Wong, Kareem Morant, Alison Jennings, Peter C Austin, Prasad Jetty, Alan J Forster","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) that is identified when the abdomen is imaged for some other reason is known as an incidental AAA. No population-based studies have assessed the management of incidental AAAs. The objective of this study was to measure the completeness of radiographic monitoring of incidental AAAs by means of a population-based analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We linked a cohort of patients with incidental AAA (defined as a previously unidentified aortic enlargement exceeding 30 mm in diameter found in an imaging study performed for another reason) to various population-based databases. We followed the patients to elective repair or rupture of the aneurysm, death or 31 Mar. 2009. We used evidence-based monitoring guidelines to calculate the proportion of observation time during which each incidental AAA was incompletely monitored. We used negative binomial regression to determine the association of patient-related factors with this outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For the period between January 1996 and September 2008, we identified 191 patients with incidental AAA (mean diameter 37.6 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] 36.6-38.6 mm; median follow-up 4.4 [range 0.6-12.7] years). Fifty-six of these patients (29.3%) had no radiographic monitoring of the aneurysm. Overall, patients spent one-fifth of their time with incomplete monitoring of the AAA (median 19.4%, interquartile range 0.3%-44.0%). Factors independently associated with incomplete monitoring included older age (relative rate [change in proportion of time with incomplete monitoring] [RR] 1.27, 95% CI 1.10-1.47, per decade), larger size (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.38-2.01, per 10-mm increase) and detection of the aneurysm while the patient was in hospital or the emergency department (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.00-1.79). Comorbidities were not associated with monitoring.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Radiographic monitoring of incidental AAAs was incomplete, and almost one-third of patients underwent no monitoring at all. Incomplete monitoring did not appear to be related to patients' comorbidity.</p>","PeriodicalId":88624,"journal":{"name":"Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal","volume":"5 2","pages":"e67-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ce/2f/OpenMed-05-e67.PMC3147999.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open medicine : a peer-reviewed, independent, open-access journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2011/4/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) that is identified when the abdomen is imaged for some other reason is known as an incidental AAA. No population-based studies have assessed the management of incidental AAAs. The objective of this study was to measure the completeness of radiographic monitoring of incidental AAAs by means of a population-based analysis.

Methods: We linked a cohort of patients with incidental AAA (defined as a previously unidentified aortic enlargement exceeding 30 mm in diameter found in an imaging study performed for another reason) to various population-based databases. We followed the patients to elective repair or rupture of the aneurysm, death or 31 Mar. 2009. We used evidence-based monitoring guidelines to calculate the proportion of observation time during which each incidental AAA was incompletely monitored. We used negative binomial regression to determine the association of patient-related factors with this outcome.

Results: For the period between January 1996 and September 2008, we identified 191 patients with incidental AAA (mean diameter 37.6 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] 36.6-38.6 mm; median follow-up 4.4 [range 0.6-12.7] years). Fifty-six of these patients (29.3%) had no radiographic monitoring of the aneurysm. Overall, patients spent one-fifth of their time with incomplete monitoring of the AAA (median 19.4%, interquartile range 0.3%-44.0%). Factors independently associated with incomplete monitoring included older age (relative rate [change in proportion of time with incomplete monitoring] [RR] 1.27, 95% CI 1.10-1.47, per decade), larger size (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.38-2.01, per 10-mm increase) and detection of the aneurysm while the patient was in hospital or the emergency department (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.00-1.79). Comorbidities were not associated with monitoring.

Interpretation: Radiographic monitoring of incidental AAAs was incomplete, and almost one-third of patients underwent no monitoring at all. Incomplete monitoring did not appear to be related to patients' comorbidity.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
偶然性腹主动脉瘤的放射学监测:一项基于人群的回顾性队列研究。
背景:因其他原因进行腹部成像时发现的腹主动脉瘤(AAA)被称为偶发性 AAA。目前还没有基于人群的研究对偶发性 AAA 的管理进行评估。本研究的目的是通过基于人群的分析,衡量对偶发性 AAA 进行放射学监测的完整性:我们将偶发性 AAA 患者队列(定义为因其他原因进行的影像学检查中发现的先前未发现的直径超过 30 毫米的主动脉增大)与各种基于人群的数据库联系起来。我们对患者进行了随访,直至患者选择性修复或动脉瘤破裂、死亡或 2009 年 3 月 31 日。我们采用循证监测指南来计算每例偶发性 AAA 未得到完整监测的观察时间比例。我们采用负二项回归法确定患者相关因素与这一结果的关联:在 1996 年 1 月至 2008 年 9 月期间,我们共发现了 191 例偶发性 AAA 患者(平均直径 37.6 mm,95% 置信区间 [CI] 36.6-38.6 mm;中位随访 4.4 [range 0.6-12.7] 年)。这些患者中有 56 人(29.3%)没有对动脉瘤进行放射学监测。总体而言,患者有五分之一的时间未对 AAA 进行完全监测(中位数为 19.4%,四分位数间距为 0.3%-44.0%)。与监测不完全相关的独立因素包括年龄较大(相对率[监测不完全时间比例的变化] [RR] 1.27,95% CI 1.10-1.47,每10年)、尺寸较大(RR 1.65,95% CI 1.38-2.01,每增加10毫米)以及患者在住院或急诊科时发现动脉瘤(RR 1.34,95% CI 1.00-1.79)。合并症与监测无关:解读:对偶发性AAA的影像学监测并不全面,近三分之一的患者根本没有接受监测。监测不完全似乎与患者的合并症无关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Closing Open Medicine. Use of mental health care for nonpsychotic conditions by immigrants in different admission classes and by refugees in Ontario, Canada. Comparison of sampling methods for hard-to-reach francophone populations: yield and adequacy of advertisement and respondent-driven sampling. Pan-Canadian overpricing of medicines: a 6-country study of cost control for generic medicines. Dengue fever: a Wikipedia clinical review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1