Advertisement

Annals of Biomedical Engineering

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 277–286 | Cite as

Quantitative Assessment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Geometry

  • Judy Shum
  • Giampaolo Martufi
  • Elena Di Martino
  • Christopher B. Washington
  • Joseph Grisafi
  • Satish C. Muluk
  • Ender A. FinolEmail author
Article

Abstract

Recent studies have shown that the maximum transverse diameter of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and expansion rate are not entirely reliable indicators of rupture potential. We hypothesize that aneurysm morphology and wall thickness are more predictive of rupture risk and can be the deciding factors in the clinical management of the disease. A non-invasive, image-based evaluation of AAA shape was implemented on a retrospective study of 10 ruptured and 66 unruptured aneurysms. Three-dimensional models were generated from segmented, contrast-enhanced computed tomography images. Geometric indices and regional variations in wall thickness were estimated based on novel segmentation algorithms. A model was created using a J48 decision tree algorithm and its performance was assessed using ten-fold cross validation. Feature selection was performed using the χ2-test. The model correctly classified 65 datasets and had an average prediction accuracy of 86.6% (κ = 0.37). The highest ranked features were sac length, sac height, volume, surface area, maximum diameter, bulge height, and intra-luminal thrombus volume. Given that individual AAAs have complex shapes with local changes in surface curvature and wall thickness, the assessment of AAA rupture risk should be based on the accurate quantification of aneurysmal sac shape and size.

Keywords

Rupture risk Geometry quantification Abdominal aortic aneurysm Machine learning Wall thickness 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the research funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Carnegie Mellon University’s Biomedical Engineering Department, the John and Claire Bertucci Graduate Fellowship program, and NIH grants R21EB007651, R21EB008804, and R15HL087268. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Carolyn Rose’s assistance in performing the statistical analysis is also gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Batchelor, P. G., A. D. Castellano Smith, and D. L. G. Hill. Proper scales of shapes—a curved scale space. LNCS 1682:375–385, 1999.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batchelor, P. G., A. D. Castellano Smith, D. L. Hill, D. J. Hawkes, T. C. Cox, and A. F. Dean. Measures of folding applied to the development of the human fetal brain. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 21:953–965, 2002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belkin, M., M. C. Donaldson, and A. D. Whittemore. Abdominal aortic aneurysms. Curr. Opin. Cardiol. 9:581–590, 1994.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Di Martino, E. S., A. Bohra, J. P. Vande Geest, N. Gupta, M. Makaroun, and D. A. Vorp. Biomechanical properties of ruptured versus electively repaired abdominal aortic aneurysm wall tissue. J. Vasc. Surg. 43:570–576, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doyle, B. J., A. Callanan, P. E. Burke, P. A. Grace, M. T. Walsh, D. A. Vorp, et al. Vessel asymmetry as an additional diagnostic tool in the assessment of abdominal aortic aneurysms. J. Vasc. Surg. 49:443–454, 2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fillinger, M. F., S. P. Marra, M. L. Raghavan, and F. E. Kennedy. Prediction of rupture risk in abdominal aortic aneurysm during observation: wall stress versus diameter. J. Vasc. Surg. 37:724–732, 2003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fillinger, M. F., J. Racusin, R. K. Baker, J. L. Cronenwett, A. Teutelink, M. L. Schermerhorn, et al. Anatomic characteristics of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm on conventional CT scans: implications for rupture risk. J. Vasc. Surg. 39:1243–1252, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fillinger, M. F., M. L. Raghavan, S. P. Marra, J. L. Cronenwett, and F. E. Kennedy. In vivo analysis of mechanical wall stress and abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk. J. Vasc. Surg. 36:589–597, 2002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Giannoglou, G., G. Giannakoulas, J. Soulis, Y. Chatzizisis, T. Perdikides, N. Melas, et al. Predicting the risk of rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms by utilizing various geometrical parameters: revisiting the diameter criterion. Angiology 57:487–494, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Greenhalgh, R. M., L. C. Brown, G. P. Kwong, J. T. Powell, and S. G. Thompson. 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 364:843–848, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Grobman, W. A., and D. M. Stamilio. Methods of clinical prediction. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 194:888–894, 2006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hall, M., E. Frank, G. Holmes, B. Pfahringer, P. Reutemann, and I. H. Witten. The WEKA data mining software: an update. SIGKDD Explor. 11:10–18, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lederle, F. A., S. E. Wilson, G. R. Johnson, D. B. Reinke, F. N. Littooy, et al. Immediate repair compared with surveillance of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. N. Engl. J. Med. 346:1437–1444, 2002.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ma, B., R. E. Harbaugh, and M. L. Raghavan. Three-dimensional geometrical characterization of cerebral aneurysms. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 32:264–273, 2004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maier, A., M. W. Gee, C. Reeps, J. Pongratz, H. H. Eckstein, and W. A. Wall. A comparison of diameter, wall stress, and rupture potential index for abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk prediction. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 38:3124–3134, 2010.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martufi, G., E. S. Di Martino, C. H. Amon, S. C. Muluk, and E. A. Finol. Three-dimensional geometrical characterization of abdominal aortic aneurysms: image-based wall thickness distribution. J. Biomech. Eng. 131(6):061015, 2009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGloughlin, T. M., and B. J. Doyle. New approaches to abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture risk assessment: engineering insights with clinical gain. Arterioscler. Thromb. Vasc. Biol. 30:1687–1694, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mower, W., L. Baraff, and J. Sneyd. Stress distribution in vascular aneurysms: factors affecting risk of aneurysm rupture. J. Surg. Res. 55:155–161, 1993.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nyilas, R. D., S. M. L. Ng, J. Leung, and X. Y. Xu. Towards a new geometric approach to assess the risk of rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysms using patient specific modeling. In: Abstract SBC2005-I21 of Proceedings of the 2005 Summer Bioengineering Conference.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pappu, S., A. Dardik, H. Tagare, and R. J. Gusberg. Beyond fusiform and saccular: a novel quantitative tortuosity index may help classify aneurysm shape and predict aneurysm rupture potential. Ann. Vasc. Surg. 22:88–97, 2008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peduzzi, P., J. Concato, E. Kemper, T. R. Holford, and A. R. Feinstein. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 49:1373–1379, 1996.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Persson, P. O., and G. Strang. A simple mesh generator in MATLAB. SIAM Rev. 46:329–345, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raghavan, M. L., B. Ma, and R. E. Harbaugh. Quantified aneurysm shape and rupture risk. J. Neurosurg. 102:355–362, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sacks, M. S., D. A. Vorp, M. L. Raghavan, M. P. Federle, and M. W. Webster. In vivo three-dimensional surface geometry of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 27:469–479, 1999.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Scotti, C. M., and E. A. Finol. Compliant biomechanics of abdominal aortic aneurysms: a fluid-structure interaction study. Comput. Struct. 85:1097–1113, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Scotti, C. M., J. Jimenez, S. C. Muluk, and E. A. Finol. Wall stress and flow dynamics in abdominal aortic aneurysms: finite element analysis vs. fluid-structure interaction. Comput. Methods Biomech. Biomed. Eng. 11:301–322, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Scotti, C. M., A. D. Shkolnik, S. C. Muluk, and E. A. Finol. Fluid-structure interaction in abdominal aortic aneurysms: effects of asymmetry and wall thickness. Biomed. Eng. Online 4:64, 2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shum, J., E. S. Di Martino, A. Goldhammer, D. Goldman, L. Acker, G. Patel, et al. Semi-automatic vessel wall detection and quantification of wall thickness in ct images of human abdominal aortic aneurysms. Med. Phys. 37:638–648, 2010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shum J, A. Xu, I. Chatnuntawech, and E. A. Finol. An automated methodology for surface mesh generation of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Ann. Biomed. Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10439-010-0165-5.
  30. 30.
    Somkantha, K., and P. Phuangsuwan. Diagnosis of the abdominal aorta aneurysm in magnetic resonance imaging images. In: International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT2009), Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Taubin, G. Signal processing approach to fair surface design. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, Los Angeles, CA, 9–11 August. New York: ACM, 1995.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Truijers, M., J. A. Pol, L. J. Schultzekool, S. M. van Sterkenburg, M. F. Fillinger, and J. D. Blankensteijn. Wall stress analysis in small asymptomatic, symptomatic and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 33:401–407, 2007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Upchurch, Jr., G. R., and T. A. Schaub. Abdominal aortic aneurysm. Am. Fam. Physician 73:1198–1204, 2006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vande Geest, J. P., E. S. Di Martino, A. Bohra, M. S. Makaroun, and D. A. Vorp. A biomechanics-based rupture potential index for abdominal aortic aneurysm risk assessment: demonstrative application. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1085:11–21, 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Venkatasubramaniam, A. K., M. J. Fagan, T. Mehta, K. J. Mylankal, B. Ray, G. Kuhan, et al. A comparative study of aortic wall stress using finite element analysis for ruptured and non-ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms. Eur. J. Vasc. Endovasc. Surg. 28:168–176, 2004.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Biomedical Engineering Society 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judy Shum
    • 1
  • Giampaolo Martufi
    • 2
  • Elena Di Martino
    • 3
    • 4
  • Christopher B. Washington
    • 5
  • Joseph Grisafi
    • 5
  • Satish C. Muluk
    • 5
  • Ender A. Finol
    • 1
    • 6
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.Biomedical Engineering DepartmentCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Solid MechanicsRoyal Institute of TechnologyStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  4. 4.Centre for Bioengineering Research and EducationUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  5. 5.Department of Vascular SurgeryAllegheny General HospitalPittsburghUSA
  6. 6.Institute for Complex Engineered SystemsCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  7. 7.Department of Mechanical EngineeringCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations