ABSTRACT
Background Saccular AAAs are thought to pose an elevated risk of rupture, but not much is known about the extent of this risk. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a survey of saccular abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) and to compare the risk of rupture between fusiform and saccular AAAs.
Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study on patients who underwent primary endovascular repair for a degenerative AAA between 2016 and 2019, and who were registered in the National Clinical Database in Japan.
Results A total of 27,290 patients were included in the study. Of these, 7.8 % (n=2142) had saccular AAAs and the remaining 92.2% (n = 25,148) were fusiform. In addition, 4.3% (n = 92) of saccular AAAs and 5.4% (n = 1351) of fusiform AAAs were ruptured. Saccular AAAs ruptured at smaller dimeters than fusiform AAAs (median, 55.6 mm vs 68.0 mm, p < 0.001), and were operated on at smaller diameters than fusiform AAAs in non-ruptured cases (median, 44.0 mm vs 51.0 mm, p < 0.001). The rupture rate was significantly higher in saccular AAAs than in fusiform AAAs in the 40-54 mm diameter range, in which saccular morphology was found to be an independent risk factor for rupture by adjusting for gender and aneurysm diameter (odds ratio, 2.54, 95% confidence interval, 1.75-3.69). In addition, receiver-operating characteristic analysis revealed that the cut-off diameter to predict rupture was smaller in saccular AAAs than in fusiform AAAs (50.5 mm and 59.5 mm, respectively).
Conclusion Saccular AAAs are more prone to rupture than fusiform AAAs in the 40-54 mm diameter range, which supports the idea that saccular AAAs should be treated at smaller diameters. The 9.0 mm difference in the predicted diameters for the rupture between fusiform and saccular AAAs suggests that the threshold diameter for intervention of saccular AAAs can be set approximately 1 cm smaller than that of fusiform AAAs.
What Is New?
Saccular abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) ruptured at smaller dimeters than fusiform AAAs (median, 55.6 mm vs 68.0 mm, p < 0.001), and receiver-operating characteristic analysis revealed that the cut-off diameter to predict rupture was smaller in saccular AAAs than in fusiform AAAs (50.5 mm and 59.5 mm, respectively).
In AAAs with a dimeter of 40-54 mm, saccular morphology turned out to be an independent risk factor for rupture by adjusting for gender and aneurysm diameter (odds ratio, 2.54, 95% confidence interval, 1.75-3.69).
What Are the Clinical Implications?
Saccular AAAs are more prone to rupture than fusiform AAAs in the 40-54 mm diameter range, which supports the current idea that saccular AAAs should be treated at smaller diameters.
The 9.0 mm difference in the predicted diameters for the rupture between fusiform and saccular AAAs suggests that the threshold diameter for intervention of saccular AAAs can be set approximately 1 cm smaller than that of fusiform AAAs.
Competing Interest Statement
Takao Ohki received advisory fees from W.L. Gore and Boston Scientific Corp. Katsuyuki Hoshina received consigned research fund from Japan Lifeline Co., Ltd. Arata Takahashi is affiliated with the Department of Healthcare Quality Assessment at the University of Tokyo, which is a social collaboration department supported by grants from the National Clinical Database, Johnson & Johnson K.K., Nipro Co., and Intuitive Surgical SÃrl. The other authors have no conflict of interest regarding this paper.
Clinical Trial
The study protocol was registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR; UMIN000050383).
Clinical Protocols
https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000057370
Funding Statement
No external funding was received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at The Jikei University School of Medicine (33-189[10806]). Informed consent was waived for this study.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
According to NCD's (NCD; national clinical database) data policy, individual data are provided only to designated analysts.
