Comparison of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements obtained with ultrasound and computed tomography

Is there a difference?

Larry Richard Sprouse, George H. Meier, Christopher J. LeSar, Richard J. DeMasi, Jaideep Sood, F. Noel Parent, Michael J. Marcinzyck, Robert G. Gayle, H. Edward Garrett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Accurate diameter measurements of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with both computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) are essential for screening, planning surgical intervention, and follow-up after endovascular repair. Often there is a discrepancy between measurements obtained with CT and US, and neither limit of agreement (LOA) nor correlation between the two imaging methods has been clearly established. The purpose of this study was to assess the paired differences in AAA diameter measurements obtained with CT and US in a large national endograft trial. Methods: CT and US measurements were obtained from an independent core laboratory established to assess imaging data in a national endograft trial (Ancure; Guidant, Menlo Park, Calif). The study included only baseline examinations in which both CT and US measurements were available. Axial CT images and transverse US images were assessed for maximal AAA diameter and recorded as CTmax and USmax, respectively. Correlations and LOA were performed between all image diameters, and differences in their means were assessed with paired t test. Results: A total of 334 concurrent measurements were available at baseline after endovascular repair. CTmax was greater than USmax in 95% (n = 312), and mean CTmax (5.69 ± 0.89 cm) was significantly larger (P < .001) than mean USmax (4.74 ± 0.91 cm). The correlation coefficient between CTmax and USmax was 0.705, but the difference between the two was less than 1.0 cm in only 51%. There was less discrepancy between CTmax and USmax for small AAA (0.7 cm, 15.3%) compared with medium (0.9 cm, 17.9%) and large (1.46 cm, 20.3%) AAA; however, the difference was not statistically significant. LOA between CTmax and USmax (-0.45-2.36 cm) exceeded the limits of clinical acceptability (-0.5-0.5 cm). Poor LOA was also found in each subgroup based on AAA size. Conclusions: Maximal AAA diameter measured with CT is significantly and consistently larger than maximal AAA diameter measured with US. The clinical significance of this difference and its cause remains a subject for further investigation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)466-471
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Volume38
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2003

Fingerprint

Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
Tomography

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Comparison of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements obtained with ultrasound and computed tomography : Is there a difference? / Sprouse, Larry Richard; Meier, George H.; LeSar, Christopher J.; DeMasi, Richard J.; Sood, Jaideep; Parent, F. Noel; Marcinzyck, Michael J.; Gayle, Robert G.; Garrett, H. Edward.

In: Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vol. 38, No. 3, 01.01.2003, p. 466-471.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sprouse, Larry Richard ; Meier, George H. ; LeSar, Christopher J. ; DeMasi, Richard J. ; Sood, Jaideep ; Parent, F. Noel ; Marcinzyck, Michael J. ; Gayle, Robert G. ; Garrett, H. Edward. / Comparison of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements obtained with ultrasound and computed tomography : Is there a difference?. In: Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2003 ; Vol. 38, No. 3. pp. 466-471.
@article{2502a931a9fc47688c9c4601161e0894,
title = "Comparison of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements obtained with ultrasound and computed tomography: Is there a difference?",
abstract = "Objectives: Accurate diameter measurements of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with both computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) are essential for screening, planning surgical intervention, and follow-up after endovascular repair. Often there is a discrepancy between measurements obtained with CT and US, and neither limit of agreement (LOA) nor correlation between the two imaging methods has been clearly established. The purpose of this study was to assess the paired differences in AAA diameter measurements obtained with CT and US in a large national endograft trial. Methods: CT and US measurements were obtained from an independent core laboratory established to assess imaging data in a national endograft trial (Ancure; Guidant, Menlo Park, Calif). The study included only baseline examinations in which both CT and US measurements were available. Axial CT images and transverse US images were assessed for maximal AAA diameter and recorded as CTmax and USmax, respectively. Correlations and LOA were performed between all image diameters, and differences in their means were assessed with paired t test. Results: A total of 334 concurrent measurements were available at baseline after endovascular repair. CTmax was greater than USmax in 95{\%} (n = 312), and mean CTmax (5.69 ± 0.89 cm) was significantly larger (P < .001) than mean USmax (4.74 ± 0.91 cm). The correlation coefficient between CTmax and USmax was 0.705, but the difference between the two was less than 1.0 cm in only 51{\%}. There was less discrepancy between CTmax and USmax for small AAA (0.7 cm, 15.3{\%}) compared with medium (0.9 cm, 17.9{\%}) and large (1.46 cm, 20.3{\%}) AAA; however, the difference was not statistically significant. LOA between CTmax and USmax (-0.45-2.36 cm) exceeded the limits of clinical acceptability (-0.5-0.5 cm). Poor LOA was also found in each subgroup based on AAA size. Conclusions: Maximal AAA diameter measured with CT is significantly and consistently larger than maximal AAA diameter measured with US. The clinical significance of this difference and its cause remains a subject for further investigation.",
author = "Sprouse, {Larry Richard} and Meier, {George H.} and LeSar, {Christopher J.} and DeMasi, {Richard J.} and Jaideep Sood and Parent, {F. Noel} and Marcinzyck, {Michael J.} and Gayle, {Robert G.} and Garrett, {H. Edward}",
year = "2003",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0741-5214(03)00367-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "466--471",
journal = "Journal of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0741-5214",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter measurements obtained with ultrasound and computed tomography

T2 - Is there a difference?

AU - Sprouse, Larry Richard

AU - Meier, George H.

AU - LeSar, Christopher J.

AU - DeMasi, Richard J.

AU - Sood, Jaideep

AU - Parent, F. Noel

AU - Marcinzyck, Michael J.

AU - Gayle, Robert G.

AU - Garrett, H. Edward

PY - 2003/1/1

Y1 - 2003/1/1

N2 - Objectives: Accurate diameter measurements of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with both computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) are essential for screening, planning surgical intervention, and follow-up after endovascular repair. Often there is a discrepancy between measurements obtained with CT and US, and neither limit of agreement (LOA) nor correlation between the two imaging methods has been clearly established. The purpose of this study was to assess the paired differences in AAA diameter measurements obtained with CT and US in a large national endograft trial. Methods: CT and US measurements were obtained from an independent core laboratory established to assess imaging data in a national endograft trial (Ancure; Guidant, Menlo Park, Calif). The study included only baseline examinations in which both CT and US measurements were available. Axial CT images and transverse US images were assessed for maximal AAA diameter and recorded as CTmax and USmax, respectively. Correlations and LOA were performed between all image diameters, and differences in their means were assessed with paired t test. Results: A total of 334 concurrent measurements were available at baseline after endovascular repair. CTmax was greater than USmax in 95% (n = 312), and mean CTmax (5.69 ± 0.89 cm) was significantly larger (P < .001) than mean USmax (4.74 ± 0.91 cm). The correlation coefficient between CTmax and USmax was 0.705, but the difference between the two was less than 1.0 cm in only 51%. There was less discrepancy between CTmax and USmax for small AAA (0.7 cm, 15.3%) compared with medium (0.9 cm, 17.9%) and large (1.46 cm, 20.3%) AAA; however, the difference was not statistically significant. LOA between CTmax and USmax (-0.45-2.36 cm) exceeded the limits of clinical acceptability (-0.5-0.5 cm). Poor LOA was also found in each subgroup based on AAA size. Conclusions: Maximal AAA diameter measured with CT is significantly and consistently larger than maximal AAA diameter measured with US. The clinical significance of this difference and its cause remains a subject for further investigation.

AB - Objectives: Accurate diameter measurements of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with both computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) are essential for screening, planning surgical intervention, and follow-up after endovascular repair. Often there is a discrepancy between measurements obtained with CT and US, and neither limit of agreement (LOA) nor correlation between the two imaging methods has been clearly established. The purpose of this study was to assess the paired differences in AAA diameter measurements obtained with CT and US in a large national endograft trial. Methods: CT and US measurements were obtained from an independent core laboratory established to assess imaging data in a national endograft trial (Ancure; Guidant, Menlo Park, Calif). The study included only baseline examinations in which both CT and US measurements were available. Axial CT images and transverse US images were assessed for maximal AAA diameter and recorded as CTmax and USmax, respectively. Correlations and LOA were performed between all image diameters, and differences in their means were assessed with paired t test. Results: A total of 334 concurrent measurements were available at baseline after endovascular repair. CTmax was greater than USmax in 95% (n = 312), and mean CTmax (5.69 ± 0.89 cm) was significantly larger (P < .001) than mean USmax (4.74 ± 0.91 cm). The correlation coefficient between CTmax and USmax was 0.705, but the difference between the two was less than 1.0 cm in only 51%. There was less discrepancy between CTmax and USmax for small AAA (0.7 cm, 15.3%) compared with medium (0.9 cm, 17.9%) and large (1.46 cm, 20.3%) AAA; however, the difference was not statistically significant. LOA between CTmax and USmax (-0.45-2.36 cm) exceeded the limits of clinical acceptability (-0.5-0.5 cm). Poor LOA was also found in each subgroup based on AAA size. Conclusions: Maximal AAA diameter measured with CT is significantly and consistently larger than maximal AAA diameter measured with US. The clinical significance of this difference and its cause remains a subject for further investigation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0141835866&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0141835866&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0741-5214(03)00367-7

DO - 10.1016/S0741-5214(03)00367-7

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 466

EP - 471

JO - Journal of Vascular Surgery

JF - Journal of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0741-5214

IS - 3

ER -