Key result
EVAR for ruptured AAA shows lower perioperative mortality than open repair but no overall survival benefit.
Why the study?
Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm is a serious complication with high operative mortality and morbidity, prompting an evaluation of perioperative and long-term outcomes in Korean patients.
Does EVAR improve survival and reduce complications compared to OSR in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms?
Cohort (n=1,034)
Yes
Does EVAR improve survival and reduce complications compared to OSR in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms?
Hazard Ratio: 1.17 (95% CI 0.98–1.41)
p-value: p=0.087
In patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, EVAR offers better perioperative outcomes but worse long-term outcomes compared to open surgical repair.
May favor EVAR perioperatively in rAAA; leaves open long-term strategy pending RCTs.
Background Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is a serious complication of abdominal aortic aneurysm associated with high operative mortality and morbidity rates. The present study evaluated the perioperative and long-term outcomes of Korean patients with rAAA based on national health insurance claims data. Methods The National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) database was searched retrospectively to identify patients with rAAA who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) from 2009 to 2018. Perioperative (≤ 30 days), early postoperative (≤ 3 month), and long-term (> 3 month) survival, reinterventions, and complications were assessed. Results The search identified 1,034 patients with rAAA, including 594 who underwent EVAR and 440 who underwent OSR. When the study period was divided into two, the total numbers of patients with rAAA, patients who underwent EVAR, and octogenarians were higher during the second half. The perioperative mortality rate was 29.8% in the EVAR and 35.0% in the OSR group (P = 0.028). Hartmann’s procedure for bowel infarction was performed more frequently in the OSR than in the EVAR group (adjusted odds ratio, 6.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.33–21.84; P = 0.001), but other complication rates did not differ significantly. All-cause mortality during the entire observation period did not differ significantly in the EVAR and OSR groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.98–1.41; P = 0.087). Abdominal aortic aneurysm-related reintervention rate was significantly lower in the OSR group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.14–0.70; P = 0.005). Conclusion Although EVAR showed somewhat superior perioperative outcomes for rAAA, the long-term outcomes of EVAR after excluding initial 3 months were significantly worse than OSR. When anatomically feasible for both treatments, the perioperative mortality risk and reasonable prospects of long-term survival should be considered in rAAA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (n=1,034). Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) vs. Open surgical repair (OSR) was evaluated on All-cause mortality during the entire observation period (HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.98-1.41, p=0.087). Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms was associated with lower perioperative mortality than open surgical repair (29.8% vs 35.0%, P=0.028), but similar overall all-cause mortality (HR 1.17; 95% CI 0.98-1.41; P=0.087).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: