4.0 Article

The aneurysm detection and management study screening program - Validation cohort and final results

Journal

ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE
Volume 160, Issue 10, Pages 1425-1430

Publisher

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archinte.160.10.1425

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: We previously reported the prevalence and associations of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in 73 451 veterans aged 50 to 79 years who underwent ultrasound screening. Objective: To understand the prevalence of and principal positive and negative risk factors fur AAA, and to assess reproducibility of our previous findings. Methods: In the new cohort of veterans undergoing screening, 52 745 subjects aged 50 to 79 without history of AAA underwent successful ultrasound screening for AAA, after completing a questionnaire on demographics and potential risk factors. Results: We detected AAA of 4.0 cm or larger in 613 participants (1.2%, compared with 1.4% in the earlier cohort). The direction and magnitude of the important associations reported in the first cohort were confirmed. Respective odds ratios for the major associations with AAA for the second and for the combined cohorts were as follows: 1.81 and 1.71 for age (per 7 years), 0.12 and 0.18 for female sex, 0.59 and 0.53 for black race, 1.94 and 1.94 for family history of AAA, 4.45 and 5.07 for smoking, 0.50 and 0.52 for diabetes, and 1.60 and 1.66 for atherosclerotic diseases. The excess prevalence associated with smoking accounted for 75% of all AAAs of 4.0 cm or larger in the total population of 126 196. Associations for AAA of 3.0 to 3.9 cm were similar but tended to be somewhat weaker. Conclusions: Our findings confirm our previous cohort findings. Age, smoking, family history of AAA, and atherosclerotic diseases remained the principal positive associations with AAA, and female sex, diabetes, and black race remained the principal negative associations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available