Standardizing Methods of Reading CT Maximum Aortic Diameters Amongst Experts Reduces Variations and Discordance, Improving Accuracy.

Background There is no consensus on the method of obtaining abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) maximum diameters based on computed tomographic angiography, and the reproducibility and accuracy of different methods have recently been debated due to advancements in imaging. This study compared the two most common methods based on orthogonal planes and centerline of flow to determine the discordances and accuracy amongst experiences readers. Methods The computed tomographic angiography max diameters of 148 AAAs were measured by three experienced observers, including a vascular surgeon, a radiologist and an imaging cardiologist. Observers used two different methods with standardized protocols: multiplanar reformations based on orthogonal planes, and a software using 3D aortic reconstructions to create centerline flow lumen providing diameters based on cross sections perpendicular to this lumen. Agreements and reliability of measurement methods were assessed by intra-class correlation coefficient and Bland – Altman analysis. Discordances between measurements of the methods and the original reported measurement, as well as outside hospitals were compared. Results The average age of the cohort was 75 years and aortic diameters ranged from 3.8 to 9.6 cm. For orthogonal readings, there were agreements within 3 mm between 86% and 92% of the time, while centerline - reading agreement was between 88% and 94%, which was not statistically significant. The intra-class correlation coefficient was high between method type and between readers. Within methods, agreement was between 0.96 and 0.97, while within - reader agreement measures was between 0.96 and 0.98. In comparison to the original and the outside hospital reports, 10% ≥ of the original and 20% ≥ of the outside hospital reported measurements were discordant between the readers. Conclusion Maximal AAA measurements can have substantial variability leading to clinical significance and change in patient management and outcomes. Based on the results, orthogonal and centerline measurement methods have equally high agreements and concordance within 3 mm and low variations at a high volume center. However, when compared to the official read reports, there is high discordance rates that can significantly alter patient outcomes. A standardized method of measurement maximum diameter can reduce variations and discordances among different methods.