Surveillance outcomes of small abdominal aortic aneurysms identified from a large screening program

Kevin C. Chun, Ashley S. Schmidt, Sukhmine Bains, Anthony T. Nguyen, Kiana M. Samadzadeh, Machelle D. Wilson, John H. Peters, Eugene S Lee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations


Objective Surveillance of patients identified with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) from an AAA screening program poses a challenge for health systems because of numerous patient follow-ups. This study evaluates the surveillance outcomes of patients identified with small AAA from a large screening program. Methods A retrospective chart review of all patients screened for small AAA (3.0-5.4 cm) from 2007 to 2011 was conducted. Patients with small AAA and no previous history of repair were tracked for follow-up using the 2013 RESCAN follow-up guidelines according to aortic diameter (3.0-3.9 cm, 3 years; 4.0-4.4 cm, 2 years; 4.5-5.4 cm, 1 year). Socioeconomic factors that may influence the follow-up rate and all-cause mortality after screening, including marital status, distance to hospital from residence, estimated household income, and employment disability status, were also evaluated. Results A total of 568 patients (mean ± standard deviation, 73.4 ± 7.2 years old) with small AAA (3.6 ± 0.6 cm) were analyzed. Patient follow-up rate was 65.1% (n = 370 of 568). Reasons for follow-up failure were lack of the physician's ordering a scan (n = 139; 70.2%), delayed ordering of scans (n = 36; 18.2%), patient no-show (n = 18; 9.1%), or patient death before follow-up (n = 5; 2.5%). Of all patient-specific factors, patients with smaller diameters were unlikely to achieve follow-up scans (P

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)55-61
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Issue number1
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Surgery


Dive into the research topics of 'Surveillance outcomes of small abdominal aortic aneurysms identified from a large screening program'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this