Implications of attendance patterns in Northern Ireland for abdominal aortic aneurysm screening

Long-Term Follow-Up of Men Invited to Participate in a Population-Based Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Program

A screening program for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), inviting 65-year-old men, was started in Stockholm in 2010 (2.3 million inhabitants). The aim was to present a long-term follow-up of men participating in screening, as well as AAA repair and ruptures among nonparticipants. Demographics were collected for men with screening detected with AAA 2010 to 2016 (n = 672) and a control group with normal aortas at screening (controls, n = 237). Medical charts and regional Swedvasc (Swedish Vascular registry) data were analyzed for aortic repair for men born 1945 to 1951. Ultrasound maximum aortic diameter (AD) as well as Aortic Size Index (ASI) was recorded. Participation was 78% and prevalence of AAA was 1.2% (n = 672). Aortic repair rates correlated with high ASI and AD. During the study period, 22% of the AAA patients were treated with the elective repair; 35 men in surveillance died (5.2%), non-AAA-related causes (82.9%) dominated, followed by unknown causes among 4 (11.4%), and 2 (5.7%) possibly AAA-related deaths. Abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture rate was higher among nonparticipants (0.096% vs 0.0036%, P < .001). The low dropout rate confirms acceptability of follow-up after screening. The efficacy is shown by the much higher rupture rate among the nonparticipating men.

[Economic evaluation studies in diagnostic imaging: justification and critical reading]

First, this article describes the concepts and tools most widely used for economic evaluation in healthcare. Second, it discusses some elements that must be taken into account in the social decision about how much we are willing to spend to prolong a person's life by one year. Third, it describes the criteria recommended for the critical analysis of publications that evaluate the economic aspects of health interventions. Finally, several studies about ultrasound screening for aneurysms of the abdominal aorta are used as illustrative examples to show how these elements and criteria can be applied.

Cost-effectiveness of the National Health Service Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Screening Programme in England

BACKGROUND

Implementation of the National Health Service abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening programme (NAAASP) for men aged 65 years began in England in 2009. An important element of the evidence base supporting its introduction was the economic modelling of the long-term cost-effectiveness of screening, which was based mainly on 4-year follow-up data from the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) randomized trial. Concern has been expressed about whether this conclusion of cost-effectiveness still holds, given the early performance parameters, particularly the lower prevalence of AAA observed in NAAASP.

METHODS

The existing published model was adjusted and updated to reflect the current best evidence. It was recalibrated to mirror the 10-year follow-up data from MASS; the main cost parameters were re-estimated to reflect current practice; and more robust estimates of AAA growth and rupture rates from recent meta-analyses were incorporated, as were key parameters as observed in NAAASP (attendance rates, AAA prevalence and size distributions).

RESULTS

The revised and updated model produced estimates of the long-term incremental cost-effectiveness of £5758 (95 per cent confidence interval £4285 to £7410) per life-year gained, or £7370 (£5467 to £9443) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.

CONCLUSION

Although the updated parameters, particularly the increased costs and lower AAA prevalence, have increased the cost per QALY, the latest modelling provides evidence that AAA screening as now being implemented in England is still highly cost-effective.

Reasons for non-participation in population-based abdominal aortic aneurysm screening

Background

A population-based screening programme for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) started in 2010 in Stockholm County, Sweden. This present study used individual data from Sweden's extensive healthcare registries to identify the reasons for non-participation in the AAA screening programme.

Methods

All 65-year-old men in Stockholm are invited to screening for AAA; this study included all men invited from July 2010 to July 2012. Participants and non-participants were compared for socioeconomic factors, travel distance to the examination centre and healthcare use. The influence of these factors on participation was analysed using univariable and multivariable logistic regression models.

Results

The participation rate for AAA screening was 77·6 per cent (18 876 of 24 319 men invited). The prevalence of AAA (aortic diameter more than 2·9 cm) among participants was 1·4 per cent. The most important reasons for non-participation in the multivariable regression analyses were: recent immigration (within 5 years) (odds ratio (OR) 3·25, 95 per cent confidence interval 1·94 to 5·47), low income (OR 2·76, 2·46 to 3·10), marital status single or divorced (OR 2·23, 2·08 to 2·39), low level of education (OR 1·28, 1·16 to 1·40) and long travel distance (OR 1·23, 1·10 to 1·37). Non-participants had a higher incidence of stroke (4·5 versus 2·8 per cent; P &lt; 0·001) and chronic pulmonary disease (2·9 versus 1·3 per cent; P &lt; 0·001). Daily smoking was more common in residential areas where the participation rate for AAA screening was low.

Conclusion

Efforts to improve participation in AAA screening should target the groups with low income, a low level of education and immigrants. The higher morbidity in the non-participant group, together with a higher rate of smoking, make it probable that this group also has a high risk of AAA.

Prevalence and trends of the abdominal aortic aneurysms epidemic in general population--a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a meta-analysis assessing the prevalence and trends of the abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) epidemic in general population.

METHOD

Studies that reported prevalence rates of AAA from the general population were identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and reference lists for the period between 1988 and 2013. Studies were included if they reported prevalence rates of AAA in general population from the community. In stratified analyses possible sources of bias, including areas difference, age, gender and diameter of aneurysms were examined. Publication bias was assessed with Egger's test method.

RESULTS

56 studies were identified. The overall pooled prevalence of AAA was 4.8% (4.3%, 5.3%). Stratified analyses showed the following results, areas difference: America 2.2% (2.2%, 2.2%), Europe 2.5% (2.4%, 2.5%), Australia 6.7% (6.5%, 7.0%), Asia 0.5% (0.3%, 0.7%); gender difference: male 6.0% (5.3%, 6.7%), female 1.6% (1.2%, 1.9%); age difference: 55-64years 1.3% (1.2%, 1.5%), 65-74 years 2.8% (2.7%, 2.9%), 75-84 years1.2%(1.1%, 1.3%), ≥85years0.6% (0.4%, 0.7%); aortic diameters difference: 30-39 mm, 3.3% (2.8%, 3.9%), 40-49 mm,0.7% (0.4%,1.0%), ≥50 mm, 0.4% (0.3%, 0.5%). The prevalence of AAA has decreased in Europe from 1988 to 2013. Hypertension, smoking, coronary artery disease, dyslipidemia, respiratory disease, cerebrovascular disease, claudication and renal insufficiency were risk factors for AAA in Europe.

CONCLUSION

AAA is common in general population. The prevalence of AAA is higher in Australia than America and Europe. The pooled prevalence in western countries is higher than the Asia. Future research requires a larger database on the epidemiology of AAA in general population.