OBJECTIVES: To analyse the results of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) for acute abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), in comparison to open repair, and to evaluate suitability and application rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients treated for an acute AAA between January 1998 and August 2004 were included. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures were procedure time, intra-operative blood loss, transfusion requirement, intensive care unit, and hospital length of stay. Suitability and application rate for eEVAR were assessed in a subgroup of patients, from January 2003. RESULTS: A total of 253 patients were treated. eEVAR was performed in 40 patients, 5 (13%) died in-hospital. Open repair was performed in 213 patients, 64 (30%) died in-hospital. Secondary outcome measures were all significantly improved in the eEVAR subgroup. From January 2003, 56 patients were treated. Of the 44 (79%) patients who were evaluated for eEVAR, 16 (36%) patients were anatomically suitable. Eventually, 15 out of the 56 (27%) patients were treated by eEVAR. CONCLUSION: The results of eEVAR in a selected group of patients are promising, but suitability and application rate were low.
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the results of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) for acute abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), in comparison to open repair, and to evaluate suitability and application rate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients treated for an acute AAA between January 1998 and August 2004 were included. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcome measures were procedure time, intra-operative blood loss, transfusion requirement, intensive care unit, and hospital length of stay. Suitability and application rate for eEVAR were assessed in a subgroup of patients, from January 2003. RESULTS: A total of 253 patients were treated. eEVAR was performed in 40 patients, 5 (13%) died in-hospital. Open repair was performed in 213 patients, 64 (30%) died in-hospital. Secondary outcome measures were all significantly improved in the eEVAR subgroup. From January 2003, 56 patients were treated. Of the 44 (79%) patients who were evaluated for eEVAR, 16 (36%) patients were anatomically suitable. Eventually, 15 out of the 56 (27%) patients were treated by eEVAR. CONCLUSION: The results of eEVAR in a selected group of patients are promising, but suitability and application rate were low.
Authors: J W Haveman; A Karliczek; E L G Verhoeven; I F J Tielliu; R de Vos; J H Zwaveling; J J A M van den Dungen; C J Zeebregts; M W N Nijsten Journal: Emerg Med J Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Ilias Dalainas; Giovanni Nano; Paolo Bianchi; Silvia Stegher; Renato Casana; Giovanni Malacrida; Domenico G Tealdi Journal: World J Surg Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: G Carrafiello; G Piffaretti; D Laganà; F Fontana; M Mangini; A M Ierardi; F Piacentino; A Canì; G Mariscalco; A Di Massa; S Cuffari; P Castelli; C Fugazzola Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-09-02 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Jelle W Raats; Hans C Flu; Gwan H Ho; Eelco J Veen; Louwerens D Vos; Ewout W Steyerberg; Lijckle van der Laan Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2014-10-13 Impact factor: 4.458