Home |
Current Issue |
Past Issues |
In the Clinic |
ACP Journal Club |
CME |
Collections |
Audio/Video |
Mobile |
Subscribe |
Tools |
Help |
ACP Online
|
1 February 2005 | Volume 142 Issue 3 | Pages 198-202
This statement summarizes the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm and the supporting scientific evidence and updates the 1996 recommendations on this topic. The complete information on which this statement is based, including evidence tables and references, is available in the accompanying article in this issue and in the evidence synthesis on this topic, which is available on the USPSTF Web site (http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov).
*For a list of the members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, see the Appendix.
CLINICAL GUIDELINES
Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Recommendation Statement
Summary of the Recommendations
![]()
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends one-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) by ultrasonography in men age 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked. This is a grade B recommendation. (See Appendix Table 1 for a description of the USPSTF classification of recommendations.)
|
The USPSTF found good evidence that screening for AAA and surgical repair of large AAAs (
5.5 cm) in men age 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked (current and former smokers) leads to decreased AAA-specific mortality. There is good evidence that abdominal ultrasonography, performed in a setting with adequate quality assurance (that is, in an accredited facility with credentialed technologists), is an accurate screening test for AAA. There is also good evidence of important harms of screening and early treatment, including an increased number of surgeries with associated clinically significant morbidity and mortality, and short-term psychological harms. On the basis of the moderate magnitude of net benefit, the USPSTF concluded that the benefits of screening for AAA in men age 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked outweigh the harms. (See Appendix Table 2 for a description of the USPSTF classification of levels of evidence.)
|
The USPSTF makes no recommendation for or against screening for AAA in men age 65 to 75 years who have never smoked. This is a grade C recommendation.
The USPSTF found good evidence that screening for AAA in men age 65 to 75 years who have never smoked leads to decreased AAA-specific mortality. There is, however, a lower prevalence of large AAAs in men who have never smoked compared with men who have ever smoked; thus, the potential benefit from screening men who have never smoked is small. There is good evidence that screening and early treatment lead to important harms, including an increased number of surgeries with associated clinically significant morbidity and mortality, and short-term psychological harms. The USPSTF concluded that the balance between the benefits and harms of screening for AAA is too close to make a general recommendation in this population.
The USPSTF recommends against routine screening for AAA in women. This is a grade D recommendation.
Because of the low prevalence of large AAAs in women, the number of AAA-related deaths that can be prevented by screening this population is small. There is good evidence that screening and early treatment result in important harms, including an increased number of surgeries with associated morbidity and mortality, and psychological harms. The USPSTF concluded that the harms of screening women for AAA outweigh the benefits.
Clinical Considerations
|
|---|
65 years), male sex, and a history of ever smoking (
100 cigarettes in a person's lifetime). A first-degree family history of AAA requiring surgical repair also elevates a man's risk for AAA; this may also be true for women but the evidence is less certain. There is only a modest association between risk factors for atherosclerotic disease and AAA. Screening for AAA would most benefit those who have a reasonably high probability of having an AAA that is large enough or will become large enough to benefit from surgery. In general, adults younger than age 65 years and adults of any age who have never smoked are at low risk for AAA and are not likely to benefit from screening. Among men age 65 to 74 years, an estimated 500 who have ever smokedor 1783 who have never smokedwould need to be screened to prevent 1 AAA-related death in the next 5 years. As always, clinicians must individualize recommendations depending on a patient's risk and likelihood of benefit. For example, some clinicians may choose to discuss screening with male nonsmokers nearing age 65 who have a strong first-degree family history of AAA that required surgery.
The potential benefit of screening for AAA among women age 65 to 75 years is low because of the small number of AAA-related deaths in this population. The majority of deaths from AAA rupture occur in women age 80 years or older. Because there are many competing health risks at this age, any benefit of screening for AAA would be minimal. Individualization of care, however, is still required. For example, a clinician may choose to discuss screening in the unusual circumstance in which a healthy female smoker in her early 70s has a first-degree family history for AAA that required surgery.
Operative mortality for open surgical repair of an AAA is 4% to 5%, and nearly one third of patients undergoing this surgery have other important complications (for example, cardiac and pulmonary). In addition, men having this surgery are at increased risk for impotence.
Endovascular repair of AAAs (EVAR) is currently being used as an alternative to open surgical repair. Although recent studies have shown a short-term mortality and morbidity benefit of EVAR compared with open surgical repair, the long-term effectiveness of EVAR to reduce AAA rupture and mortality is unknown. The long-term harms of EVAR include late conversion to open repair and aneurysmal rupture. EVAR performed with older-generation devices is reported to have an annual rate of rupture of 1% and conversion to open surgical repair of 2%. The conversion to open surgical repair is associated with a perioperative mortality of about 24%. The long-term harms of newer-generation EVAR devices are yet to be reported.
For most men, age 75 years may be considered an upper age limit for screening. Patients cannot benefit from screening and subsequent surgery unless they have a reasonable life expectancy. The increased presence of comorbid conditions for people age 75 years and older decreases the likelihood that they will benefit from screening.
Ultrasonography has a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of nearly 100% when performed in a setting with adequate quality assurance. The absence of quality assurance is likely to lower test accuracy. Abdominal palpation has poor accuracy and is not an adequate screening test.
One-time screening to detect an AAA using ultrasonography is sufficient. There is negligible health benefit in rescreening those who have normal aortic diameter on initial screening.
Open surgical repair for an AAA of at least 5.5 cm leads to an estimated 43% reduction in AAA-specific mortality in older men who undergo screening. However, there is no current evidence that screening reduces all-cause mortality in this population.
In men with intermediate-sized AAAs (4.0 to 5.4 cm), periodic surveillance offers comparable mortality benefit to routine elective surgery with the benefit of fewer operations. Although there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of any intervention in those with small AAAs (3.0 to 3.9 cm), there are expert opinionbased recommendations in favor of periodic repeated ultrasonography for these patients.
Discussion
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
The strongest risk factor for the rupture of an AAA is maximal aortic diameter (12, 13). The natural history of clinically apparent AAAs of 5.5 cm or more is difficult to determine, since most large aneurysms are surgically repaired. Results of 1 study showed that 1-year incidence rates of rupture were 9% for AAAs of 5.5 to 5.9 cm, 10% for AAAs of 6.0 to 6.9 cm, and 33% for AAAs of 7.0 cm or more (14). A rapid rate of aneurysm expansion exceeding 1.0 cm/y is commonly used in making decisions about the elective repair of AAAs less than 5.5 cm; however, the predictive value of expansion as an index of rupture risk is less clear (15).
The major risk factors for AAA include male sex, a history of ever smoking (defined in surveys as 100 cigarettes in a person's lifetime), and age 65 years or older. Other lesser risk factors include family history, coronary heart disease, claudication, hypercholesterolemia, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, and increased height (16). Factors associated with decreased risk include female sex, diabetes mellitus, and black race.
Screening abdominal ultrasonography in asymptomatic individuals is an accurate test, with 95% sensitivity and near 100% specificity (17, 18). The USPSTF review identified 4 randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) of screening for AAA; these RCTs predominantly screened white men age 65 years and older (16, 18). A good-quality RCT of 67 800 white men age 65 to 74 years was conducted to evaluate screening for AAA (4). Screening was performed by ultrasonography and surgery in men with AAAs greater than 5.4 cm. The study showed that AAA-related mortality was reduced by an average of 42% (95% CI, 22% to 58%) in the screened population compared with the nonscreened population; the absolute reduction in AAA-specific mortality was 0.14% (0.33% in the nonscreened group and 0.19% in the screened group) (16).
A fair-quality RCT selected 15 775 white men and women age 65 to 80 years from family medical practices (19). This was the only one of the 4 RCTs that studied women. The prevalence of AAA in women was one sixth of that in men. The incidence of AAA rupture was the same in the screened and control groups of women. This trial lacked adequate power and reported a nonstatistically significant 41% reduction in AAA-related mortality in screened men and no reduction in AAA-related mortality in screened women. A fair-quality hospital-based RCT of 12 658 men age 65 to 73 years showed a 69% statistically significant reduction in AAA-specific mortality (20). Another RCT was population-based and included 38 704 men age 65 to 83 years. After 5 years of follow-up, 18 men in the group invited to be screened, and 25 in the control group, died of causes associated with AAA (odds ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.04 to 1.11]). In a subgroup analysis, there was a statistically significant reduction in AAA-related mortality in men age 65 to 75 years, but not in older men (21). A meta-analysis of these trials showed a relative risk reduction of 43% in AAA-related deaths by screening for AAA, although there was no change in all-cause mortality (16, 18).
Death from AAA rupture after negative results on a single ultrasound scan at age 65 years is rare. Studies have shown that the incidence rate for new AAAs in a period of 10 years is low, ranging from 0% to 4%; none of the incident AAAs exceeded a diameter of 4.0 cm (11, 22-24). On the basis of these studies, negative results on a single ultrasound examination around the age of 65 years appears to virtually exclude the risk for future AAA rupture or death.
Two randomized trials showed no statistically significant mortality benefit from immediate surgical repair compared with frequent surveillance for intermediate-sized AAAs (4.0 to 5.4 cm) (25, 26). In addition, about 39% fewer AAA-related surgical repairs needed to be performed in the surveillance group.
Two randomized trials reported that the 30-day mortality rate for EVAR was significantly reduced compared with open surgical repair (about 1.5% vs. 4.5%, respectively) (27, 28). While there are short-term mortality and morbidity benefits of performing EVAR compared with open surgical repair, the magnitude of long-term potential harms is not well known. Long-term potential harms of EVAR may occur because of device failure, which could cause bleeding into the aneurysmal sac around the device or from retrograde flow into the aneurysmal sac through collateral blood vessels. These events may require late conversion to open repair or may lead to aneurysmal rupture. Studies of the EUROSTAR (EUROpean collaborators on Stent-graft Techniques for abdominal aortic Aneurysm Repair) registry report an annual rupture rate of 1% and conversion to open repair at an annual rate of 2%, with a 24% perioperative mortality rate for the conversion (29, 30).
Although open surgical repair remains the only proven intervention that leads to decreased AAA mortality in the long term, there are major harms associated with this procedure. One study showed in-hospital mortality rates for patients undergoing open repair to be 4.2% (31). The complication rate of elective surgery is about 32% and includes myocardial infarction, respiratory failure, renal failure, ischemic colitis, spinal cord ischemia, and prosthetic graft infections (16).
There is a short-term impact of AAA screening on quality-of-life measures. Those testing positive for AAA initially had more anxiety and lower physical and mental health scores (measured by the Short Form-36) than those testing negative. Those who underwent surgery, compared with those receiving continued surveillance, had slightly lower Short Form-36 scores but higher self-rated health scores 3 months after surgery. These negative psychological measures returned to normal levels within 12 months after screening or surgery (4).
The USPSTF review of 4 relevant cost-effectiveness studies of AAA yielded an estimated cost-effectiveness ratio of population-based AAA screening (compared with no screening) that is in the same range as that of other cost-effective preventive services (32).
The pathogenesis of AAA formation is complex and multifactorial; more studies are needed to clarify AAA's natural history of formation and expansion. A number of areas require further study, including the lack of a strong association between AAA and atherosclerotic disease; the prevalence and natural history of AAA in women; the efficacy of screening and treatment in nonwhite male populations; the efficacy and periodicity of surveillance of small AAAs (3.0 to 4.0 cm); and the long-term efficacy of EVAR as an alternative to open surgical repair, especially for AAAs less than 4.0 cm. There is also a need for a high-quality cost-effectiveness analysis of AAA screening conducted from the U.S. societal perspective.
Recommendations of Other Groups
|
|---|
Appendix
|
|---|
This list includes members of the Task Force at the time this recommendation was finalized. For a list of current Task Force members, go to http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm.
Author and Article Information
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the U.S. Government. They should not be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Requests for Single Reprints: Reprints are available from the USPSTF Web site (http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov) and in print through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publications Clearinghouse (800-358-9295).
References
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
1. Johnston KW, Rutherford RB, Tilson MD, Shah DM, Hollier L, Stanley JC. Suggested standards for reporting on arterial aneurysms. Subcommittee on Reporting Standards for Arterial Aneurysms, Ad Hoc Committee on Reporting Standards, Society for Vascular Surgery and North American Chapter, International Society for Cardiovascular Surgery. J Vasc Surg. 1991;13:452-8. [PMID: 1999868].[Medline]
2. Gillum RF. Epidemiology of aortic aneurysm in the United States. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:1289-98. [PMID: 7490591].[Medline]
3. Bengtsson H, Bergqvist D, Ekberg O, Janzon L. A population based screening of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA). Eur J Vasc Surg. 1991;5:53-7. [PMID: 2009986].[Medline]
4. Ashton HA, Buxton MJ, Day NE, Kim LG, Marteau TM, Scott RA, et al. The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360:1531-9. [PMID: 12443589].[Medline]
5. Lindholt JS, Henneberg EW, Fasting H, Juul S. Mass or high-risk screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg. 1997;84:40-2. [PMID: 9043447].[Medline]
6. Morris GE, Hubbard CS, Quick CR. An abdominal aortic aneurysm screening programme for all males over the age of 50 years. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1994;8:156-60. [PMID: 8181607].[Medline]
7. Simoni G, Pastorino C, Perrone R, Ardia A, Gianrossi R, Decian F, et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms and associated risk factors in a general population. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 1995;10:207-10. [PMID: 7655973].[Medline]
8. Smith FC, Grimshaw GM, Paterson IS, Shearman CP, Hamer JD. Ultrasonographic screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in an urban community. Br J Surg. 1993;80:1406-9. [PMID: 8252350].[Medline]
9. Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE, Chute EP, Littooy FN, Bandyk D, et al. Prevalence and associations of abdominal aortic aneurysm detected through screening. Aneurysm Detection and Management (ADAM) Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:441-9. [PMID: 9072929].
10. Scott RA, Bridgewater SG, Ashton HA. Randomized clinical trial of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm in women. Br J Surg. 2002;89:283-5. [PMID: 11872050].[Medline]
11. Scott RA, Vardulaki KA, Walker NM, Day NE, Duffy SW, Ashton HA. The long-term benefits of a single scan for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) at age 65. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2001;21:535-40. [PMID: 11397028].[Medline]
12. Nevitt MP, Ballard DJ, Hallett JW Jr. Prognosis of abdominal aortic aneurysms. A population-based study. N Engl J Med. 1989;321:1009-14. [PMID: 2674715].[Abstract]
13. Glimåker H, Holmberg L, Elvin A, Nybacka O, Almgren B, Björck CG, et al. Natural history of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm. Eur J Vasc Surg. 1991;5:125-30. [PMID: 2037082].[Medline]
14. Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE, Ballard DJ, Jordan WD Jr, Blebea J, et al. Rupture rate of large abdominal aortic aneurysms in patients refusing or unfit for elective repair. JAMA. 2002;287:2968-72. [PMID: 12052126].
15. Wilmink AB, Quick CR. Epidemiology and potential for prevention of abdominal aortic aneurysm. Br J Surg. 1998;85:155-62. [PMID: 9501808].[Medline]
16. Fleming C, Whitlock EP, Beil T, Lederle F. Primary Care Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm. Evidence Synthesis No. 35. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; January 2004. Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under contract no. 290-02-0024. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/serfiles.htm.
17. van der Vliet JA, Oomen AP. [Abdominal aortic aneurysm: screening and treatment]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 1993;137:1155 [PMID: 8316312].[Medline]
18. Fleming C, Whitlock EP, Beil TL, Lederle FA. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a best-evidence systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2005;142:203-11.
19. Scott RA, Wilson NM, Ashton HA, Kay DN. Influence of screening on the incidence of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: 5-year results of a randomized controlled study. Br J Surg. 1995;82:1066-70. [PMID: 7648155].[Medline]
20. Lindholt JS, Juul S, Fasting H, Henneberg EW. Hospital costs and benefits of screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. Results from a randomised population screening trial. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2002;23:55-60. [PMID: 11748949].[Medline]
21. Norman PE, Jamrozik K, Lawrence-Brown MM, Le MT, Spencer CA, Tuohy RJ, et al. Population based randomised controlled trial on impact of screening on mortality from abdominal aortic aneurysm. BMJ. 2004;329:1259 [PMID: 15545293].
22. Crow P, Shaw E, Earnshaw JJ, Poskitt KR, Whyman MR, Heather BP. A single normal ultrasonographic scan at age 65 years rules out significant aneurysm disease for life in men. Br J Surg. 2001;88:941-4. [PMID: 11442524].[Medline]
23. Emerton ME, Shaw E, Poskitt K, Heather BP. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a single scan is enough. Br J Surg. 1994;81:1112-3. [PMID: 7953333].[Medline]
24. Lederle FA, Johnson GR, Wilson SE, Littooy FN, Krupski WC, Bandyk D, et al. Yield of repeated screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm after a 4-year interval. Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Investigators. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:1117-21. [PMID: 10789604].
25. Lederle FA, Wilson SE, Johnson GR, Reinke DB, Littooy FN, Acher CW, et al. Immediate repair compared with surveillance of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1437-44. [PMID: 12000813].
26. Mortality results for randomised controlled trial of early elective surgery or ultrasonographic surveillance for small abdominal aortic aneurysms. The UK Small Aneurysm Trial Participants. Lancet. 1998;352:1649-55. [PMID: 9853436].[Medline]
27. Greenhalgh RM, Brown LC, Kwong GP, Powell JT, Thompson SG. 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;364:843-8. [PMID: 15351191].[Medline]
28. Prinssen M, Verhoeven EL, Buth J, Cuypers PW, van Sambeek MR, Balm R, et al. A randomized trial comparing conventional and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1607-18. [PMID: 15483279].
29. Harris PL, Vallabhaneni SR, Desgranges P, Becquemin JP, van Marrewijk C, Laheij RJ. Incidence and risk factors of late rupture, conversion, and death after endovascular repair of infrarenal aortic aneurysms: the EUROSTAR experience. European Collaborators on Stent/graft techniques for aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2000;32:739-49. [PMID: 11013038].[Medline]
30. Vallabhaneni SR, Harris PL. Lessons learnt from the EUROSTAR registry on endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. Eur J Radiol. 2001;39:34-41. [PMID: 11439229].[Medline]
31. Huber TS, Wang JG, Derrow AE, Dame DA, Ozaki CK, Zelenock GB, et al. Experience in the United States with intact abdominal aortic aneurysm repair. J Vasc Surg. 2001;33:304-10. [PMID: 11174782].[Medline]
32. Meenan RT, Fleming C, Whitlock EP, Beil TL, Smith P. Cost-effectiveness analyses of population-based screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: evidence synthesis. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; January 2004. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspstopics.htm.
33. Kent KC, Zwolak RM, Jaff MR, Hollenbeck ST, Thompson RW, Schermerhorn ML, et al. Screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm: a consensus statement. J Vasc Surg. 2004;39:267-9. [PMID: 14718853].[Medline]
Related articles in Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
K. I. Paraskevas, C. D. Liapis, G. Hamilton, and D. P. Mikhailidis Are Statins an Option in the Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms? Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, May 1, 2008; 42(2): 128 - 134. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. G. Kim, R. A. P. Scott, H. A. Ashton, S. G. Thompson, and for the Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study Group A Sustained Mortality Benefit from Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Ann Intern Med, May 15, 2007; 146(10): 699 - 706. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. A. Lederle, R. L. Kane, R. MacDonald, and T. J. Wilt Systematic Review: Repair of Unruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Ann Intern Med, May 15, 2007; 146(10): 735 - 741. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. D. Birkmeyer and G. R. Upchurch Jr. Evidence-Based Screening and Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Ann Intern Med, May 15, 2007; 146(10): 749 - 750. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Filipovic, M. J Goldacre, and L. Gill Elective surgery for aortic abdominal aneurysm: comparison of English outcomes with those elsewhere J. Epidemiol. Community Health, March 1, 2007; 61(3): 226 - 231. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. ARRINGTON, T. OGATA, P. M. DAVIS Jr, A. D SAM II, L. H HOLLIER, G. TROMP, and H. KUIVANIEMI Aneurysm Outreach Inc., a Nonprofit Organization, Offers Community-Based, Ultrasonography Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., November 1, 2006; 1085(1): 291 - 293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. A. Beckman, M. R. Jaff, and M. A. Creager The United States Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement on Screening for Peripheral Arterial Disease: More Harm Than Benefit? Circulation, August 22, 2006; 114(8): 861 - 866. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. L. Knight and S. D. Fihn Update in General Internal Medicine Ann Intern Med, July 4, 2006; 145(1): 52 - 61. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Fillinger Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: Recommendation Statement Perspectives in Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, March 1, 2006; 18(1): 71 - 73. [Abstract] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. N. Trivedi, T. D. Sequist, and J. Z. Ayanian Impact of Hospital Volume on Racial Disparities in Cardiovascular Procedure Mortality J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., January 17, 2006; 47(2): 417 - 424. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. L. Cronenwett Screening for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Ann Intern Med, August 16, 2005; 143(4): 309 - 309. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
F. A. Lederle Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm -- Round Two N. Engl. J. Med., June 9, 2005; 352(23): 2443 - 2445. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
USPSTF Recommends Screening for AAA in Older Men Who Ever Smoked Journal Watch (General), February 18, 2005; 2005(218): 3 - 3. [Full Text] |
||||
![]() |
In brief BMJ, February 5, 2005; 330(7486): 272 - 272. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
Read all Rapid Responses
|