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.
MollFLPowellJTFraedrichG. Management of abdominal aortic aneurysms clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011;41(suppl 1):S1–S58.
2.
GoASMozaffarianDRogerVL. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127:143–152.
3.
GreenhalghRMBrownLCKwongGP. Comparison of endovascular aneurysm repair with open repair in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR trial 1), 30-day operative mortality results: randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2004;364:843–848.
4.
ScottRATisiPVAshtonHA. Abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture rates: a 7-year follow-up of the entire abdominal aortic aneurysm population detected by screening. J Vasc Surg. 1998;28:124–128.
5.
PowellJTBrownLCForbesJF. Final 12-year follow-up of surgery versus surveillance in the UK Small Aneurysm Trial. Br J Surg. 2007;94:702–708.
6.
KontopodisNMetaxaEPapaharilaouYY. Advance-ments in identifying biomechanical determinants for abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture. Vascular. 2015;23:65–77.
7.
SonessonBHansenFStaleH. Compliance and diameter in the human abdominal aorta—the influence of age and sex. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1993;7:690–697.
8.
WilsonKALeeAJHoskinsPR. The relationship between aortic wall distensibility and rupture of infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37:112–117.
9.
GantenM-KKrautterUvon Tengg-KobligkH. Quantification of aortic distensibility in abdominal aortic aneurysm using ECG-gated multi-detector computed tomography. Eur Radiol. 2008;18:966–973.
10.
MoherDLiberatiATetzlaffJ. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–341.
11.
WellsGASheaBO’ConnellD. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses [Ottawa Hospital/Research Institute web site]. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed June 11, 2015.
12.
FillingerMFRaghavanMLMarraSP. In vivo analysis of mechanical wall stress and abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk. J Vasc Surg. 2002;36:589–597.
13.
FillingerMFMarraSPRaghavanML. Prediction of rupture risk in abdominal aortic aneurysm during observation: wall stress versus diameter. J Vasc Surg. 2003;37:724–732.
14.
VenkatasubramaniamAKFaganMJMehtaT. A comparative study of aortic wall stress using finite element analysis for ruptured and non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2004;28:168–176.
15.
RaghavanMLFillingerMFMarraSP. Automated methodology for determination of stress distribution in human abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Biomech Eng. 2005;127:868–871.
16.
Vande GeestJPDi MartinoESBohraA. A biomechanics-based rupture potential index for abdominal aortic aneurysm risk assessment: demonstrative application. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2006;1085:11–21.
17.
TruijersMPolJASchultzekoolLJ. Wall stress analysis in small asymptomatic, symptomatic and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2007;33:401–407.
18.
Vande GeestJPSchmidtDESacksMS. The effects of anisotropy on the stress analyses of patient-specific abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann Biomed Eng. 2008;36:921–932.
19.
HengMSFaganMJCollierJW. Peak wall stress measurement in elective and acute abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2008;47:17–22.
20.
ReepsCGeeMMaierA. The impact of model assumptions on results of computational mechanics in abdominal aortic aneurysm. J Vasc Surg. 2010;51:679–688.
21.
DoyleBJCoylePKavanaghEG. A finite element analysis rupture index (FEARI) assessment of electively repaired and symptomatic/ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. In: LimCTGohJC, eds. IFMBE Proceedings. Vol 31. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2010:883–886.
22.
MaierAGeeMWReepsC. A comparison of diameter, wall stress, and rupture potential index for abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk prediction. Ann Biomed Eng. 2010;38:3124–3134.
23.
GasserTCAuerMLabrutoF. Biomechanical rupture risk assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms: model complexity versus predictability of finite element simulations. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2010;40:176–185.
24.
GasserTCNchimiASwedenborgJ. A novel strategy to translate the biomechanical rupture risk of abdominal aortic aneurysms to their equivalent diameter risk: Method and retrospective validation. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2014;47:288–295.
25.
ErhartPHyhlik-DürrAGeisbüschP. Finite element analysis in asymptomatic, symptomatic, and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: in search of new rupture risk predictors. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2015;49:239–245.
26.
XenosMRambhiaSAlemuY. Patient based abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk prediction combining clinical visualizing modalities with fluid structure interaction numerical simulations. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2010;2010:5173–5176.
27.
XenosMPeterDARambhiaSH. Fluid structure interaction for patient specific risk assessment in abdominal aortic aneurysms. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 36th Annual Northeast Bioengineering Conference (NEBEC). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE; 2010:1–2.
28.
XenosMLabropoulosNRambhiaS. Progression of abdominal aortic aneurysm towards rupture: refining clinical risk assessment using a fully coupled fluid-structure interaction method. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014;43:139–153.
29.
SonessonBSandgrenTLänneT. Abdominal aortic aneurysm wall mechanics and their relation to risk of rupture. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1999;18:487–493.
30.
ZohiosCKossiorisGPapaharilaouY. Geometrical methods for level set based abdominal aortic aneurysm thrombus and outer wall 2D image segmentation. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2012;107:202–217.
31.
MaioraJAyerdiBGrañaM. Random forest active learning for AAA thrombus segmentation in computed tomography angiography images. Neurocomputing. 2014;126:71–77.
32.
Tavares MonteiroJAda SilvaESRaghavanML. Histologic, histochemical, and biomechanical properties of fragments isolated from the anterior wall of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg. 2014;59:1393–1401.e1-2.
33.
AkyildizACSpeelmanLGijsenFJ. Mechanical properties of human atherosclerotic intima tissue. J Biomech. 2014;47:773–783.
34.
SpeelmanLBohraABosboomEM. Effects of wall calcifications in patient-specific wall stress analyses of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Biomech Eng. 2007;129:105–109.
35.
LuJZhouXRaghavanML. Inverse elastostatic stress analysis in pre-deformed biological structures: demonstration using abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Biomech. 2007;40:693–696.
36.
SpeelmanLBosboomEMSchurinkGW. Initial stress and nonlinear material behavior in patient-specific AAA wall stress analysis. J Biomech. 2009;42:1713–1719.
37.
JózsaTIPaálG. Boundary conditions for flow simulations of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Int J Heat Fluid Flow. 2014;50:342–351.
38.
HardmanDDoyleBJSempleSI. On the prediction of monocyte deposition in abdominal aortic aneurysms using computational fluid dynamics. Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2013;227:1114–1124.
39.
ErdemirAGuessTMHalloranJ. Considerations for reporting finite element analysis studies in biomechanics. J Biomech. 2012;45:625–633.
40.
van OoijPPottersWVGuédonA. Wall shear stress estimated with phase contrast MRI in an in vitro and in vivo intracranial aneurysm. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;38:876–884.
41.
TeutelinkACancrinusEvandeHeuvelD. Preliminary intraobserver and interobserver variability in wall stress and rupture risk assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms using a semiautomatic finite element model. J Vasc Surg. 2012;55:326–330.
42.
Hyhlik-DürrAKriegerTGeisbüschP. Reproducibility of deriving parameters of AAA rupture risk from patient-specific 3D finite element models. J Endovasc Ther. 2011;18:289–298.
