ObjectivesThe study aimed to identify differences and compare anatomical and biomechanical features between elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs).MethodsData (clinical, anatomical, and biomechanical) of 98 patients with AAA, 75 (76.53%) asymptomatic (Group aAAA) and 23 (23.46%) ruptured AAA (Group rAAA), were prospectively collected and analyzed. Anatomical, morphological, and biomechanical imaging markers like peak wall stress (PWS) and rupture risk equivalent diameter (RRED), comorbid conditions, and demographics were compared between the groups. Biomechanical features were assessed by analysis of Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine images by A4clinics (Vascops), and anatomical features were assessed by 3Surgery (Trimensio). Binary and multiple logistic regression analysis were used and adjusted for confounders. Accuracy was assessed using receiving operative characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.ResultsIn a multivariable model, including gender and age as confounder variables, maximal aneurysm diameter [MAD, odds ratio (OR) = 1.063], relative intraluminal thrombus (rILT, OR = 1.039), and total aneurysm volume (TAV, OR = 1.006) continued to be significant predictors of AAA rupture with PWS (OR = 1.010) and RRED (OR = 1.031). Area under the ROC curve values and correct classification (cc) for the same parameters and the model that combines MAD, TAV, and rILT were measured: MAD (0.790, cc = 75%), PWS (0.713, cc = 73%), RRED (0.717, cc = 55%), TAV (0.756, cc = 79%), rILT (0.656, cc = 60%), and MAD + TAV + rILT (0.797, cc = 82%).ConclusionBased on our results, in addition to MAD, other important predictors of rupture that might be used during aneurysm surveillance are TAV and rILT. Biomechanical parameters (PWS, RRED) as valuable predictors should be assessed in prospective clinical trials. Similar studies on AAA smaller than 55 mm in diameter, even difficult to organize, would be of even greater clinical value.