Development, implementation, and evaluation of a structured reporting web tool for abdominal aortic aneurysms

BACKGROUND The majority of radiological reports are lacking a standard structure. Even within a specialized area of radiology, each report has its individual structure with regards to details and order, often containing too much of non-relevant information the referring physician is not interested in. For gathering relevant clinical key parameters in an efficient way or to support long-term therapy monitoring, structured reporting might be advantageous. OBJECTIVE Despite of new technologies in medical information systems, medical reporting is still not dynamic. To improve the quality of communication in radiology reports, a new structured reporting system was developed for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), intended to enhance professional communication by providing the pertinent clinical information in a predefined standard. METHODS Actual state analysis was performed within the departments of radiology and vascular surgery by developing a Technology Acceptance Model. The SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis focused on optimization of the radiology reporting of patients with AAA. Definition of clinical parameters was achieved by interviewing experienced clinicians in radiology and vascular surgery. For evaluation, a focus group (4 radiologists) looked at the reports of 16 patients. The usability and reliability of the method was validated in a real-world test environment in the field of radiology. RESULTS A Web-based application for radiological "structured reporting" (SR) was successfully standardized for AAA. Its organization comprises three main categories: characteristics of pathology and adjacent anatomy, measurements, and additional findings. Using different graphical widgets (eg, drop-down menus) in each category facilitate predefined data entries. Measurement parameters shown in a diagram can be defined for clinical monitoring and be adducted for quick adjudications. Figures for optional use to guide and standardize the reporting are embedded. Analysis of variance shows decreased average time required with SR to obtain a radiological report compared to free-text reporting (P=.0001). Questionnaire responses confirm a high acceptance rate by the user. CONCLUSIONS The new SR system may support efficient radiological reporting for initial diagnosis and follow-up for AAA. Perceived advantages of our SR platform are ease of use, which may lead to more accurate decision support. The new system is open to communicate not only with clinical partners but also with Radiology Information and Hospital Information Systems.

The role of diameter versus volume as the best prognostic measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms

Accurate measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms is necessary to predict rupture risk and, more recently, to follow aneurysm sac behavior following endovascular repair. Up until this point, aneurysm diameter has been the most common measurement utilized for these purposes. Although aneurysm diameter is predictive of rupture, accurate measurement is hindered by such factors as aortic tortuosity and interobserver variability, and it does not account for variations in morphology such as saccular aneurysms. Additionally, decreases in aneurysm diameter do not completely describe the somewhat complex remodeling seen following endovascular repair of aortic aneurysms. Measurement of aneurysm volume has the advantage of describing aneurysm morphology in a multidimensional fashion, but it has not been readily available or easily measured until recently. This has changed with the introduction of commercially available software tools that permit quicker and easier to perform volume measurements. Whether it is time for volume to replace, or compliment, diameter is the subject of the current debate.

Finite element analysis in asymptomatic, symptomatic, and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: in search of new rupture risk predictors.

OBJECTIVES To compare biomechanical rupture risk parameters of asymptomatic, symptomatic and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) using finite element analysis (FEA). STUDY DESIGN Retrospective biomechanical single center analysis of asymptomatic, symptomatic, and ruptured AAAs. Comparison of biomechanical parameters from FEA. MATERIALS AND METHODS From 2011 to 2013 computed tomography angiography (CTA) data from 30 asymptomatic, 15 symptomatic, and 15 ruptured AAAs were collected consecutively. FEA was performed according to the successive steps of AAA vessel reconstruction, segmentation and finite element computation. Biomechanical parameters Peak Wall Rupture Risk Index (PWRI), Peak Wall Stress (PWS), and Rupture Risk Equivalent Diameter (RRED) were compared among the three subgroups. RESULTS PWRI differentiated between asymptomatic and symptomatic AAAs (p < .0004) better than PWS (p < .1453). PWRI-dependent RRED was higher in the symptomatic subgroup compared with the asymptomatic subgroup (p < .0004). Maximum AAA external diameters were comparable between the two groups (p < .1355). Ruptured AAAs showed the highest values for external diameter, total intraluminal thrombus volume, PWS, RRED, and PWRI compared with asymptomatic and symptomatic AAAs. In contrast with symptomatic and ruptured AAAs, none of the asymptomatic patients had a PWRI value >1.0. This threshold value might identify patients at imminent risk of rupture. CONCLUSIONS From different FEA derived parameters, PWRI distinguishes most precisely between asymptomatic and symptomatic AAAs. If elevated, this value may represent a negative prognostic factor for asymptomatic AAAs.

Single-center experience in the management of spontaneous isolated abdominal aortic dissection

OBJECTIVE This study aims to report the management of patients with spontaneous isolated dissection of the abdominal aorta (sIAAD). METHODS A cohort of 18 consecutive patients (12 male, mean age 58 years) with sIAAD was treated between 1990 and 2009. Dissection was asymptomatic in ten and symptomatic in eight patients. Retrospective data analysis from patient charts was performed. Follow-up included clinical examination, ultrasound, and/or CT-angiography. Mean follow-up was 54 months (range 1-211). RESULTS In total, eight out of 18 received invasive treatment. All asymptomatic patients initially underwent conservative treatment and surveillance. Spontaneous false lumen thrombosis occurred in four (40 %), and three patients showed relevant aneurysmatic progression and underwent elective invasive treatment (open n = 2, endovascular n = 1), representing a crossover rate of 30 %. Late mortality was 20 % (n = 2) in this group. In symptomatic patients, five underwent urgent treatment due to persistent abdominal or back pain (n = 4) or contained rupture (n = 1); one was treated for claudication. The remaining two patients presented with irreversible spinal cord ischemia and were treated conservatively. Three patients were treated by open surgery and three by endovascular interventions (two stentgrafts, one Palmaz XXL stent). Early and late morbidity and mortality was 0 % in this group. There were no reinterventions CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with sIADD require invasive treatment, with EVAR being the preferable treatment option today. In asymptomatic IADD, primary surveillance is justifiable, but close surveillance due to expansion is necessary.