Key result
Endovascular repair of ruptured AAA is linked to ~14% higher absolute 30-day survival versus open repair.
Why the study?
The immediate survival benefit of endovascular repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm ruptures lacked conclusive support from randomized controlled studies.
Does endovascular repair (rEVAR) reduce mortality in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms compared to open repair?
Cohort (n=263)
No
Does endovascular repair (rEVAR) reduce mortality in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms compared to open repair?
Absolute Event Rate: 83.2% vs 68.9%
p-value: p=0.015
Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms is associated with significantly improved 30-day and 90-day survival compared to open repair.
May support endovascular preference for ruptured AAA; leaves open need for RCTs to confirm causality.
BACKGROUND: The treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm ruptures (rAAA) has changed from open to endovascular repair (rEVAR) during the last decade. The immediate survival benefit after endovascular treatment method is well-known, yet without conclusive support from randomized controlled studies. The aim of this study is to report the survival benefit of rEVAR during the transition between 2 treatment methods and to highlight the in-hospital protocol for rAAA patients, with continuous simulation training and a designated team. METHODS: This study is a retrospective review of rAAA patients diagnosed at Helsinki University Hospital during 2012-2020, including a total of 263 patients. Patients were divided by treatment method, and the primary end point was 30-day mortality. The secondary end points were 90-days mortality, one year mortality, and the length of stay in intensive care. RESULTS: Patients were divided into the rEVAR group (n = 119) and open repair group (rOR n = 119). The turndown rate was 9.5% (n = 25). The 30-day short-term survival favored endovascular treatment (rEVAR 83.2% vs. rOR 68.9%, P = 0.015). The 90-day postdischarge survival was higher in the rEVAR group (rEVAR 80.7% vs. rOR 67.2%, P = 0.026). One-year survival was also higher in the rEVAR group, however with less statistical significance (rEVAR 74.8% vs. rOR 64.7%, P = 0.120). The effect of the revised rAAA protocol was seen in improved survival, when comparing the first 3 years of the cohort (2012-2014) to the last 3 years of the cohort (2018-2020). Survival rates were higher at 30 days, 90 days, and one year in the late cohort (74% vs. 84%, 72% vs. 81%, and 70% vs. 77%). CONCLUSIONS: The rEVAR has its place as a first-line treatment option for most patients and reduces short-term and midterm mortality at least to 1-year follow-up compared to rOR. Dedicated vascular surgeons for rEVAR and continuous simulation training for the operating room staff are key elements of a low turndown and successful rAAA treatment. The use of an occlusive aortic balloon reduces overall mortality in both operative methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Viitala et al. (2023) conducted a cohort in Abdominal aortic aneurysm ruptures (rAAA) (n=263). Endovascular repair (rEVAR) vs. Open repair (rOR) was evaluated on 30-day mortality (reported as 30-day short-term survival) (p=0.015). Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms was associated with higher 30-day survival compared to open repair (83.2% vs. 68.9%, P=0.015).
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: