Abstract
Purpose:
To compare early and midterm results of open versus endovascular aortic repair of ruptured abdominal aneurysms (rAAA).
Methods:
A retrospective analysis was performed of 58 consecutive patients with rAAA who were treated with open or endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) at a single center between January 2000 and December 2005. Patients without definitive signs of rupture (symptomatic patients) were excluded from the study. Twenty-nine patients (21 men; median age 71 years) were treated using endovascular techniques (EVAR group) and 29 (28 men; median age 71 years) with open repair (OR group). The hemodynamic status at the time of admission was evaluated with respect to blood pressure, pulse rate, and hemoglobin level to reduce selection bias. Patients underwent followup by clinical examination and computed tomography.
Results:
The 30-day mortality rate was 31% (9/29) in each group (p=1.0); the morbidity rates also did not differ between groups [16 (55.2%) EVAR vs. 18 (62.1%) OR; p=0.9]. There was 1 (3.4%) primary conversion in the EVAR group and 7 (24.1%) endoleaks [3 (10.3%) primary; 4 (13.8%) secondary]. There was no difference between the groups with regard to intensive care unit stay (4 days for EVAR vs. 3 days for OR, p=0.98) or total hospital stay (9 days for EVAR vs. 12 days for OR, p=0.69). After a mean followup of 40.25 months (range 1–70), the midterm mortality rates did not differ [5 (17.2%) EVAR vs. 3 (10.3%) OR, p=0.41].
Conclusion:
EVAR of rAAAs is feasible, with equal early and midterm mortality rates compared to open repair. When a defined patient selection is used for rupture, including hemodynamic status, there is no evidence of a better outcome with EVAR in emergency cases.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.