• Tejas P Singh, Joseph V Moxon, T Christian Gasser, and Jonathan Golledge.
• Queensland Research Centre for Peripheral Vascular Disease College of Medicine and Dentistry James Cook University Townsville Queensland Australia.
• J Am Heart Assoc. 2021 Apr 20; 10 (8): e019772.

AbstractBackground Prior studies have suggested aortic peak wall stress (PWS) and peak wall rupture index (PWRI) can estimate the rupture risk of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), but whether these measurements have independent predictive ability over assessing AAA diameter alone is unclear. The aim of this systematic review was to compare PWS and PWRI in participants with ruptured and asymptomatic intact AAAs of similar diameter. Methods and Results Web of Science, Scopus, Medline, and The Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify studies assessing PWS and PWRI in ruptured and asymptomatic intact AAAs of similar diameter. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using inverse variance-weighted methods. Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of findings. Risk of bias was assessed using a modification of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and standard quality assessment criteria for evaluating primary research papers. Seven case-control studies involving 309 participants were included. Meta-analyses suggested that PWRI (standardized mean difference, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.14-0.70; P=0.004) but not PWS (standardized mean difference, 0.13; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.44; P=0.418) was greater in ruptured than intact AAAs. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the findings were not dependent on the inclusion of any single study. The included studies were assessed to have a medium to high risk of bias. Conclusions Based on limited evidence, this study suggested that PWRI, but not PWS, is greater in ruptured than asymptomatic intact AAAs of similar maximum aortic diameter.

24 keywords...

hide…