Responses

Download PDFPDF

Retrospective review of abdominal aortic aneurysm deaths in New Zealand: what proportion of deaths is potentially preventable by a screening programme in the contemporary setting?
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Comorbidities and opportunistic detection do not stop AAA screening from being cost-effective and equity enhancing.
    • Karen Bartholomew, Director of Health Outcomes Waitemata and Auckland District Health Boards
    • Other Contributors:
      • Dale Bramley, Chief Executive
      • Sue Crengle, Associate Professor – Māori Health
      • Corina Grey, Public Health Physician
      • Andrew Hill, Clinical Director of Auckland Regional Vascular Services
      • Greg Jones, Research Professor
      • Manar Khashram, Vascular Surgeon
      • Justin Roake, Professor of Surgery
      • Peter Sandiford, Public Health Physician / Honorary academic
      • Nina Scott, Clinical Director Māori Public Health

    The recently published article by Chan et al. questions the value of AAA screening. [1] We question the validity of the arguments and the data they use to support it, which we believe are either irrelevant or support the case for screening. Furthermore, the Chan et al. paper completely neglects the important equity gains that AAA screening can produce in the New Zealand (NZ) population.

    Chan and his co-authors’ critique of AAA screening is based on 3 arguments: (i) patients with AAA are too sick with other comorbidities to benefit from screening and die of these other illnesses; (ii) most patients with AAA would be diagnosed by the health system anyway without a screening programme; and (iii) the size of the population that can benefit from screening is too small for it to be cost effective. Let us look more closely at each of these.

    Co-morbidities in patients with AAA

    The authors emphasise the point that co-morbidities in AAA patients might limit the benefit they attain from screening. They calculate that 77% of those dying of AAA had some other comorbidity. However, to imply that these were fulminant conditions and that preventing AAA death in this group would have been futile because they are moribund is highly misleading. The collection of co-morbidities includes: atrial fibrillation (a condition very prevalent in any elderly population), cardiovascular disease (CVD), also highly prevalent especially for Māori (which could range in severity f...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.