Scimago Lab
powered by Scopus
eISSN: 2325-4416


Get your full text copy in PDF

Endovascular vs. Open Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm

Nikolaos Patelis, Demetrios Moris, Georgios Karaolanis, Sotiris Georgopoulos

(Vascular Unit, First Department of Surgery, Laiko General Hospital, Medical School, National & Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece)

Med Sci Monit Basic Res 2016; 22:34-44

DOI: 10.12659/MSMBR.897601

ABSTRACT: Background: Patients presenting with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms are most often treated with open repair despite the fact that endovascular aneurysm repair is a less invasive and widely accepted method with clear benefits for elective aortic aneurysm patients. A debate exists regarding the definitive benefit in endovascular repair for patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. The aim of this literature review was to determine if any trends exist in favor of either open or endovascular repair.
Material and Methods: A literature search was performed using PUBMED, OVID, and Google Scholar databases. The search yielded 64 publications.
Results: Out of 64 publications, 25 were retrospective studies, 12 were population-based, 21 were prospective, 5 were the results of RCTs, and 1 was a case-series. Sixty-one studies reported on early mortality and provided data comparing endovascular repair (rEVAR) and open repair (rOR) for ruptured abdominal aneurysm groups. Twenty-nine of these studies reported that rEVAR has a lower early mortality rate. Late mortality after rEVAR compared to that of rOR was reported in 21 studies for a period of 3 to 60 months. Results of 61.9% of the studies found no difference in late mortality rates between these 2 groups. Thirty-nine publications reported on the incidence of complications. Approximately half of these publications support that the rEVAR group has a lower complication rate and the other half found no difference between the groups. Length of hospital stay has been reported to be shorter for rEVAR in most studies. Blood loss and need for transfusion of either red cells or fresh frozen plasma was consistently lower in the rEVAR group.
Conclusions: Differences between the included publications affect the outcomes. Randomized control trials have not been able to provide clear conclusions. rEVAR can now be considered a safe method of treating rAAA, and is at least equal to the well-established rOR method.

This paper has been published under Creative Common Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially.
I agree