EVAR Suitability is not a Predictor for Early and Midterm Mortality after Open Ruptured AAA repair

ObjectiveThe reported mortality reduction of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) compared with open repair in patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA), as observed in observational studies, might be flawed by selection bias based on anatomical suitability for eEVAR. In the present study, we compared mortality in EVAR suitable versus non-EVAR-suitable patients with a ruptured AAA who were all treated with conventional open repair.Materials and MethodsIn all patients presenting with a suspected rAAA, computed tomography angiography (CTA) scanning was performed. All consecutive patients with a confirmed rAAA on preoperative CTA scan and treated with open repair between April 2002 and April 2008 were included. Anatomical suitability for eEVAR was determined by two blinded independent reviewers. Outcomes evaluated were mortality (intra-operative, 30-day, and 6-month), morbidity, complications requiring re-intervention and length of hospital stay.ResultsA total of 107 consecutive patients presented with a rAAA and underwent preoperative CTA scanning. In 25 patients, eEVAR was performed. In the 82 patients who underwent open repair, CTA showed an EVAR-suitable rAAA in 33 patients (41.8%) and a non-EVAR-suitable rAAA in 49 patients. Thirty-day and 6-month mortality rate was 15/33 (45.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 28.1–63.7) and 18/33 (54.5%; 95% CI 36.4–71.9) in the EVAR-suitable group versus 24/49 (49.0%; 95% CI 34.4–63.7) (P = 0.75) and 29/49 (59.2%; 95% CI 44.2–73.0) (P = 0.68) in the non-EVAR-suitable group, respectively.ConclusionsThe present study suggests that anatomical suitability for EVAR is not associated with lower early and midterm mortality in patients treated with open ruptured AAA repair. Therefore, the reported reduction in mortality between eEVAR and open repair is unlikely due to selection bias based on anatomical AAA configuration.