Sex differences in ascending aortic size reporting and growth on chest computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging
Siavash Zamirpour, Marko T. Boskovski, James P. Pirruccello, William A. Pace, Alan Hubbard, Joseph Leach, Liang Ge, Elaine E. Tseng
Abstract
PURPOSE: Diameter-based guidelines for prophylactic repair of ascending aortic aneurysms have led to routine aortic evaluation in chest imaging. Despite sex differences in aneurysm outcomes, there is little understanding of sex-specific aortic growth rates. Our objective was to evaluate sex-specific temporal changes in radiologist-reported aortic size as well as sex differences in aortic reporting. METHOD: In this cohort study, we queried radiology reports of chest computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging at an academic medical center from 1994 to 2022, excluding type A dissection. Aortic diameter was extracted using a custom text-processing algorithm. Growth rates were estimated using mixed-effects modeling with fixed terms for sex, age, and imaging modality, and patient-level random intercepts. Sex, age, and modality were evaluated as predictors of aortic reporting by logistic regression. RESULTS: This study included 89,863 scans among 46,622 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 64 [52-73]; 22,437 women [48%]). Aortic diameter was recorded in 14% (12,722/89,863 reports). Temporal trends were analyzed in 7194 scans among 1998 patients (age, 68 [60-75]; 677 women [34%]) with ≥2 scans. Aortic growth rate was significantly higher in women (0.22 mm/year [95% confidence interval 0.17-0.28] vs. 0.09 mm/year [0.06-0.13], respectively). Aortic reporting was significantly less common in women (odds ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.52-0.56; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While aortic growth rates were small overall, women had over twice the growth rate of men. Aortic dimensions were much less frequently reported in women than men. Sex-specific standardized assessment of aortic measurements may be needed to address sex differences in aneurysm outcomes.