4.8 Article

The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial

Journal

LANCET
Volume 360, Issue 9345, Pages 1531-1539

Publisher

LANCET LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11522-4

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Opposing views have been published on the importance of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study was designed to assess whether or not such screening is beneficial. Methods A population-based sample of men (n=67 800) aged 65-74 years was enrolled, and each individual randomly allocated to either, receive an invitation for an abdominal ultrasound scan (invited group, n=33 839) or not (control group, n=33 961). Men in whom abdominal aortic aneurysms (greater than or equal to3 cm in diameter) were detected were followed-up with repeat ultrasound scans for a mean of 4.1 years. Surgery was considered on specific criteria (diameter greater than or equal to5.5 cm, expansion greater than or equal to1 cm per year, symptoms). Mortality data were obtained from the Office of National Statistics, and an intention-to-treat analysis was based on cause of death. Quality of life was assessed with four standardised scales. The primary outcome measure was mortality related to abdominal aortic aneurysm. Findings 27 147 of 33 839 (80%) men in the invited group accepted the invitation to screening, and 1333 aneurysms were detected. There were 65 aneurysm-related deaths (absolute risk 0.19%) in the invited group, and 113 (0.33%) in the control group (risk reduction 42%, 95% Cl 22-58; p=0.0002), with a 53% reduction (95% Cl 30-64) in those who attended screening. 30-day mortality was 6% (24 of 414) after elective surgery for an aneurysm, and 37% (30 of 81) after emergency surgery. Interpretation Our results provide reliable evidence of benefit from screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available