Rupture risk parameters upon biomechanical analysis independently change from vessel geometry during abdominal aortic aneurysm growth

OBJECTIVE: The indication for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is based on a diameter threshold. However, mechanical properties, such as peak wall stress (PWS) and peak wall rupture index (PWRI), influence the individual rupture risk. This study aims to correlate biomechanical and geometrical AAA characteristics during aneurysm growth applying a new linear transformation-based comparison of sequential imaging. METHODS: Patients with AAA with two sequential computed tomography angiographies (CTA) were identified from a single-center aortic database. Patient characteristics included age, gender, and comorbidities. Semiautomated segmentation of CTAs was performed using Endosize (Therenva) for geometric variables (diameter, neck configuration, α/β angle, and vessel tortuosity) and for finite element method A4 Clinics Research Edition (Vascops) for additional variables (intraluminal thrombus [ILT]), vessel volume, PWS, PWRI). Maximum point coordinates from at least one CTA 6 to 24 months before their final were predicted for the final preoperative CTA using linear transformation along fix and validation points to estimate spatial motion. Pearson’s correlation and the t test were used for comparison. RESULTS: Thirty-two eligible patients (median age, 70 years) were included. The annual AAA growth rate was 3.7 mm (interquartile range [IQR], 2.25-5.44; P < .001) between CTs. AAA (+17%; P < .001) and ILT (+43%; P < .001) volume, maximum ILT thickness (+35%; P < .001), β angle (+1.96°; P = .017) and iliac tortuosity (+0.009; P = .012) increased significantly. PWS (+12%; P = .0029) and PWRI (+16%; P < .001) differed significantly between both CTAs. Both mechanical parameters correlated most significantly with the AAA volume increase (r = 0.68 [P < .001] and r = 0.6 [P < .001]). Changes in PWS correlated best with the aneurysm neck configuration. The spatial motion of maximum ILT thickness was 14.4 mm (IQR, 7.3-37.2), for PWS 8.4 mm (IQR, 3.8-17.3), and 11.5 mm (IQR, 5.9-31.9) for PWRI. Here, no significant correlation with any of the aforementioned parameters, patient age, or time interval between CTs were observed. CONCLUSIONS: PWS correlates highly significant with vessel volume and aneurysm neck configuration. Spatial motion of maximum ILT thickness, PWS, and PWRI is detectable and predictable and might expose different aneurysm wall segments to maximum stress throughout aneurysm growth. Linear transformation could thus add to patient-specific rupture risk analysis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk assessment is a key feature in future individualized therapy approaches for patients, since more and more data are obtained concluding a heterogeneous disease entity that might not be addressed ideally looking only at diameter enlargement. The approach presented in this pilot study demonstrates the feasibility and importance of measuring peak wall stress and rupture risk indices based on predicted and actual position of maximum stress points including intraluminal thrombus.