Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2016 Jan;51(1):22-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.07.001. Epub 2015 Aug 1.

Endovascular Versus Open Repair as Primary Strategy for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A National Population-based Study.

Author information

1
Department of Surgical Sciences, Section of Vascular Surgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; Centre for Research and Development, Uppsala University/County Council of Gävleborg, Gävle, Sweden.
2
Department of Surgical Sciences, Section of Vascular Surgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
3
Department of Surgical Sciences, Section of Vascular Surgery, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. Electronic address: kevin.mani@surgsci.uu.se.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND:

In randomized trials, no peri-operative survival benefit has been shown for endovascular (EVAR) repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) when compared with open repair. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of primary repair strategy on early and midterm survival in a non-selected population based study.

METHODS:

The Swedish Vascular Registry was consulted to identify all rAAA repairs performed in Sweden in the period 2008-12. Centers with a primary EVAR strategy (treating > 50% of rAAA with EVAR) were compared with centers with a primary open repair strategy. Peri-operative outcome, midterm survival, and incidence of rAAA repair/100,000 inhabitants aged > 50 years were assessed.

RESULTS:

In total, 1,304 patients were identified. Three primary EVAR centers (pEVARc) operated on 236 patients (74.6% EVAR). Twenty-six primary open repair centers (pORc) operated 1,068 patients (15.6% EVAR). Patients treated at pEVARc were more often referrals (28.0% vs. 5.3%; p < .01), had a higher rate of respiratory comorbidity (36.5% vs. 21.9%; p < .01), and higher pre-operative systolic blood pressure (84.3 vs. 72.3 mmHg; p < .01). There was no difference in mortality based on primary treatment strategy at 30 days (pEVARc 28.0%, n = 66; pORc 27.4%, n = 296 [p = .87]), 1 year (pEVARc 39.9%, n = 93; pORc 34.7%, n = 366 [p = .19]), or 2 years (42.1%, n = 94; 38.3%, n = 394 [p = .28]), either overall or in subgroups based on age or referral status. Overall, patients treated with EVAR were older (mean age 76.4 vs. 74.0 years; p < .01), and had a lower 30 day mortality (EVAR 21.6%, n = 74; odds ratio 29.6%, n = 288 [p = < .01]). Incidence of rAAA repair was lower in pEVARc regions (6.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.01-7.13) when compared with pORc regions (8.15, 95% CI 7.64-8.66).

CONCLUSION:

There was no difference in mortality after rAAA repair among centers with a primary EVAR approach when compared with a primary open repair strategy, either peri-operatively or in the midterm. The study supports the early findings of the randomized controlled trials in a national population based setting.

KEYWORDS:

Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Endovascular repair; Rupture; Surgical outcome

PMID:
26238308
DOI:
10.1016/j.ejvs.2015.07.001
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center