Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Apr;24(2):254-261.
doi: 10.1177/1526602816680088. Epub 2016 Nov 21.

Biomechanical Indices for Rupture Risk Estimation in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Affiliations
Review

Biomechanical Indices for Rupture Risk Estimation in Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

Eva L Leemans et al. J Endovasc Ther. 2017 Apr.

Abstract

Purpose: To review the use of biomechanical indices for the estimation of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) rupture risk, emphasizing their potential use in a clinical setting.

Methods: A search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Compendex databases was made up to June 2015 to identify articles involving biomechanical analysis of AAA rupture risk. Outcome variables [aneurysm diameter, peak wall stress (PWS), peak wall shear stress (PWSS), wall strain, peak wall rupture index (PWRI), and wall stiffness] were compared for asymptomatic intact AAAs vs symptomatic or ruptured AAAs. For quantitative analysis of the pooled data, a random effects model was used to calculate the standard mean differences (SMDs) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the biomechanical indices.

Results: The initial database searches yielded 1894 independent articles of which 19 were included in the analysis. The PWS was significantly higher in the symptomatic/ruptured group, with a SMD of 1.11 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.26, p<0.001). Likewise, the PWRI was significantly higher in the ruptured or symptomatic group, with a SMD of 1.15 (95% CI 0.30 to 2.01, p=0.008). After adjustment for the aneurysm diameter, the PWS remained higher in the ruptured or symptomatic group, with a SMD of 0.85 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.23, p<0.001). Less is known of the wall shear stress and wall strain indices, as too few studies were available for analysis.

Conclusion: Biomechanical indices are a promising tool in the assessment of AAA rupture risk as they incorporate several factors, including geometry, tissue properties, and patient-specific risk factors. However, clinical implementation of biomechanical AAA assessment remains a challenge owing to a lack of standardization.

Keywords: abdominal aortic aneurysm; biomechanical analysis; risk assessment; rupture; rupture risk index; symptomatic aneurysm; wall strain; wall stress.

PubMed Disclaimer

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources