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, χ(2) 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.
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, χ(2) 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.
Authors: Frank J Veith; Mario Lachat; Dieter Mayer; Martin Malina; Jan Holst; Manish Mehta; Eric L G Verhoeven; Thomas Larzon; Stefano Gennai; Gioacchino Coppi; Evan C Lipsitz; Nicholas J Gargiulo; J Adam van der Vliet; Jan Blankensteijn; Jacob Buth; W Anthony Lee; Giorgio Biasi; Gaetano Deleo; Karthikeshwar Kasirajan; Randy Moore; Chee V Soong; Neal S Cayne; Mark A Farber; Dieter Raithel; Roy K Greenberg; Marc R H M van Sambeek; Jan S Brunkwall; Caron B Rockman; Robert J Hinchliffe Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: R K Greenberg; S D Srivastava; K Ouriel; D Waldman; K Ivancev; K A Illig; C Shortell; R M Green Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Francisco C Albuquerque; Britt H Tonnessen; Robert E Noll; Giancarlo Cires; Jason K Kim; W Charles Sternbergh Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Monique Prinssen; Eric L G Verhoeven; Jaap Buth; Philippe W M Cuypers; Marc R H M van Sambeek; Ron Balm; Erik Buskens; Diederick E Grobbee; Jan D Blankensteijn Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-10-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Neval Yilmaz; Noud Peppelenbosch; Philippe W M Cuypers; Alexander V Tielbeek; Luciën E M Duijm; Jacob Buth Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: N Peppelenbosch; N Yilmaz; C van Marrewijk; J Buth; Ph Cuypers; L Duijm; A Tielbeek Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Sara L Zettervall; Peter A Soden; Dominique B Buck; Jack L Cronenwett; Phillip P Goodney; Mohammad H Eslami; Jason T Lee; Marc L Schermerhorn Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Annalise M Panthofer; Sydney L Olson; Brooks L Rademacher; Jennifer K Grudzinski; Elliot L Chaikof; Jon S Matsumura Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Felix Krenzien; Ivan Matia; Georg Wiltberger; Hans-Michael Hau; Moritz Schmelzle; Sven Jonas; Udo X Kaisers; Peter T Fellmer Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2014-11-18 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Dustin M Thomas; Edward A Hulten; Shane T Ellis; David M F Anderson; Nathan Anderson; Fiora McRae; Jamil A Malik; Todd C Villines; Ahmad M Slim Journal: ISRN Cardiol Date: 2014-04-02