This study states that The few randomized trials comparing endovascular with open surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) were poorly designed and heavily criticized. The short-term and midterm survival advantages of endovascular repair remain unclear. We sought to compare the two treatment modalities using a propensity-matched analysis in a real-world setting.
All ruptured cases of open surgical repair (rOSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (rEVAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative were analyzed (2003-2018). Raw and propensity-matched rEVAR and rOSR cohorts were compared. Primary and secondary outcomes included postoperative major adverse events (cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, bowel or limb ischemia, reoperation) and 30-day and 1-year mortality. Univariate, multivariate, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed. This is one of the largest studies of rAAA demonstrating clear short-term and midterm survival benefits of rEVAR over rOSR that persisted after matching on all major demographic, comorbid, and anatomic variables. Furthermore, patients who survived rOSR had twice the length of stay with increased rates of complications compared with rEVAR patients. These data suggest a more aggressive endovascular approach for rAAA in patients with suitable anatomy.
Reference link-https://www.jvascsurg.org/article/S0741-5214(20)30145-2/fulltext
