Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Abdominal aortic aneurysm ultrasound surveillance varies between hospitals in the United Kingdom. University Hospitals Bristol and Weston adopt a 6-monthly surveillance interval for 4.5-4.9 cm abdominal aortic aneurysm, which is a deviation from nationally recommended 3-monthly intervals. Assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rate, and the concurrent impact of abdominal aortic aneurysm risk factors and medications prescribed for risk factors, may inform whether this change in surveillance intervals is safe and appropriate. METHODS: This analysis was conducted retrospectively. A total of 1312 abdominal aortic aneurysm ultrasound scans from 315 patients between January 2015 and March 2020 were split into 0.5 cm groups, ranging from 3.0 to 5.5 cm. Abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rate was assessed with one-way analysis of variance. The impact of risk factors and risk factor medication on abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rate was analysed using multivariate and univariate linear regression and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Patient cause of death among surveillance patients was recorded. RESULTS: Abdominal aortic aneurysm growth rate was significantly associated with increased abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter (p < 0.001). There was a significant whole-group reduction in growth rate from 0.29 to 0.19 cm/year in diabetics compared to non-diabetics (p = 0.02), supported by univariate linear regression (p = 0.04). In addition, gliclazide patients had lower growth rate compared to patients not on the medication (p = 0.04). One abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture occurred <5.5 cm resulting in death. CONCLUSION: Abdominal aortic aneurysm measuring 4.5-4.9 cm had a mean growth rate of 0.3 cm/year (± 0.18 cm/year). Therefore, mean growth rate and variability suggest patients are unlikely to surpass surgical threshold of 5.5 cm between the 6-monthly surveillance scans, supported by low rupture rates. This suggests the surveillance interval for 4.5-4.9 cm abdominal aortic aneurysm is a safe and appropriate deviation from national guidance. In addition, it may be pertinent to consider diabetic status when designing surveillance intervals.