Abstract
Accurate and reproducible measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) size is an essential component of patient management, and most reliably performed at CT using a multiplanar reformat (MPR) strategy. This approach is not universal, however. This study aims to characterize the measurement error present in routine clinical assessment of AAAs and the potential clinical ramifications. Patients were included if they had AAA assessed by CT and/or MRI at two time points at least 6 months apart. Clinical maximal AAA diameter, assessed by non-standardized methods, was abstracted from the radiology report at each time point and compared to the reference aneurysm diameter measured using a MPR strategy. Discrepancies between clinical and reference diameters, and associated aneurysm enlargement rates were analyzed. Two hundred thirty patients were included, with average follow-up 3.3±2.5 years. When compared to MPR-derived diameters, clinical aneurysm measurement inaccuracy was, on average, 3.3 mm. Broad limits of agreement were found for both clinical diameters [-6.7 to +6.5 mm] and aneurysm enlargement rates [-4.6 to +4.2 mm/year] when compared to MPR-based measures. Of 78 AAAs measuring 5-6 cm by the MPR method, 21 (26.9%) were misclassified by the clinical measurement with respect to a common repair threshold (5.5 cm), of which 5 were misclassified as below, and 16 were misclassified as above the threshold. The clinical use of non-standardized AAA measurement strategies can lead to incorrect classification of AAAs as larger or smaller than the commonly accepted repair threshold of 5.5 cm and can induce large errors in quantification of aneurysm enlargement rate.