Our data suggest that AAA rupture is associated with aortic wall weakening, but not with wall stiffening. A widely accepted indicator for risk of aneurysm rupture is the maximum transverse diameter. Our results suggest that AAA wall strength, in large aneurysms, is not related to the maximum transverse diameter. Rather, wall thickness or stiffness may be a better predictor of rupture for large AAAs.

Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) can typically remain stable until the strength of the aortic wall is unable to withstand the forces acting on it as a result of the luminal blood pressure, resulting in AAA rupture. The clinical treatment of AAA patients presents a dilemma for the surgeon: surgery should only be recommended when the risk of rupture of the AAA outweighs the risks associated with the interventional procedure. Since AAA rupture occurs when the stress acting on the wall exceeds its strength, the assessment of AAA rupture should include estimates of both wall stress and wall strength distributions. The present work details a method for noninvasively assessing the rupture potential of AAAs using patient-specific estimations the rupture potential index (RPI) of the AAA, calculated as the ratio of locally acting wall stress to strength. The RPI was calculated for thirteen AAAs, which were broken up into ruptured (n = 8 and nonruptured (n = 5) groups. Differences in peak wall stress, minimum strength and maximum RPI were compared across groups. There were no statistical differences in the maximum transverse diameters (6.8 +/- 0.3 cm vs. 6.1 +/- 0.5 cm, p = 0.26) or peak wall stress (46.0 +/- 4.3 vs. 49.9 +/- 4.0 N/cm(2), p = 0.62) between groups. There was a significant decrease in minimum wall strength for ruptured AAA (81.2 +/- 3.9 and 108.3 +/- 10.2 N/cm(2), p = 0.045). While the differences in RPI values (ruptured = 0.48 +/- 0.05 vs. nonruptured = 0.36 +/- 0.03, respectively; p = 0.10) did not reach statistical significance, the p-value for the peak RPI comparison was lower than that for both the maximum diameter (p = 0.26) and peak wall stress (p = 0.62) comparisons. This result suggests that the peak RPI may be better able to identify those AAAs at high risk of rupture than maximum diameter or peak wall stress alone. The clinical relevance of this method for rupture assessment has yet to be validated, however, its success could aid clinicians in decision making and AAA patient management.

Extending systemic warming to the perioperative period had additional beneficial effects, with minimal additional cost and patient discomfort.

It is generally acknowledged that rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) occurs when the stress acting on the wall over the cardiac cycle exceeds the strength of the wall. Peak wall stress computations appear to give a more accurate rupture risk assessment than AAA diameter, which is currently used for a diagnosis. Despite the numerous studies utilizing patient-specific wall stress modeling of AAAs, none investigated the effect of wall calcifications on wall stress. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of calcifications on patient-specific finite element stress computations. In addition, we assessed whether the effect of calcifications could be predicted directly from the CT-scans by relating the effect to the amount of calcification present in the AAA wall. For 6 AAAs, the location and extent of calcification was identified from CT-scans. A finite element model was created for each AAA and the areas of calcification were defined node-wise in the mesh of the model. Comparisons are made between maximum principal stress distributions, computed without calcifications and with calcifications with varying material properties. Peak stresses are determined from the stress results and related to a calcification index (CI), a quantification of the amount of calcification in the AAA wall. At calcification sites, local stresses increased, leading to a peak stress increase of 22% in the most severe case. Our results displayed a weak correlation between the CI and the increase in peak stress. Additionally, the results showed a marked influence of the calcification elastic modulus on computed stresses. Inclusion of calcifications in finite element analysis of AAAs resulted in a marked alteration of the stress distributions and should therefore be included in rupture risk assessment. The results also suggest that the location and shape of the calcified regions--not only the relative amount--are considerations that influence the effect on AAA wall stress. The dependency of the effect of the wall stress on the calcification elastic modulus points out the importance of determination of the material properties of calcified AAA wall.