Endovascular vs open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

Objective Endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) has become first-line therapy at our institution and is performed under a standardized protocol. We compare perioperative mortality, midterm survival, and morbidity after EVAR and open surgical repair (OSR). Methods Re...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of vascular surgery Vol. 56; no. 1; pp. 15 - 20
Main Authors Nedeau, April E., MD, Pomposelli, Frank B., MD, Hamdan, Allen D., MD, Wyers, Mark C., MD, Hsu, Richard, MD, PhD, Sachs, Teviah, MD, Siracuse, Jeffrey J., MD, Schermerhorn, Mark L., MD
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published New York, NY Mosby, Inc 01.07.2012
Elsevier
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Objective Endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) has become first-line therapy at our institution and is performed under a standardized protocol. We compare perioperative mortality, midterm survival, and morbidity after EVAR and open surgical repair (OSR). Methods Records were retrospectively reviewed from May 2000 to September 2010 for repair of infrarenal rAAAs. Primary end points included perioperative mortality and midterm survival. Secondary end points included acute limb ischemia, length of stay, ventilator-dependent respiratory failure, myocardial infarction, renal failure, abdominal compartment syndrome, and secondary intervention. Statistical analysis was performed using the t -test, χ2 test, the Fisher exact test, and logistic regression calculations. Midterm survival was assessed with Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazard models. Results Seventy-four infrarenal rAAAs were repaired, 19 by EVAR and 55 by OSR. Despite increased age and comorbidity in the EVAR patients, perioperative mortality was 15.7% for EVAR, which was significantly lower than the 49% for OSR (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.74; P = .008). Midterm survival also favored EVAR (hazard ratio, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.77; P = .028, adjusted for age and sex). Mean follow-up was 20 months, and 1-year survival was 60% for EVAR vs 45% for OSR. Mean length of stay for patients surviving >1 day was 10 days for EVAR and 21 days for OSR ( P = .004). Ventilator-dependent respiratory failure was 5% in the EVAR group vs 42% for OSR (odds ratio, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.62; P = .001). Conclusions EVAR of rAAA has a superior perioperative survival advantage and decreased morbidity vs OSR. Although not statistically significant, overall survival favors EVAR. We recommend that EVAR be considered as the first-line treatment of rAAAs and practiced as the standard of care.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0741-5214
1097-6809
DOI:10.1016/j.jvs.2011.12.067