Transition from Open Repair to Endovascular Aneurysm Repair for Rupture Aortic Aneurysms throughout a 16-Year Period of Time in a Single Tertiary Center

BACKGROUND

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is recommended as the first option for both elective and ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) with suitable anatomy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the gradual adoption of ruptured EVAR (rEVAR) as first option in the management of rAAAs in a reference tertiary center over a 16 year-period.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected clinical data was undertaken, including all patients that were treated for rAAA infrarenal or juxtarenal either with open surgical repair (OSR) or EVAR from 2006-2023. Three periods were identified and analyzed: Initial (2006-2011); intermediate (2012-2017); and current (2018-2023). The primary outcomes were the 30-day mortality rate in relation to the changing pattern of treatment. Secondary outcomes were re-intervention and mortality during the follow up period.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were treated for rAAA; 52% by endovascular means [EVAR (94), Ch-EVAR (9), and branched endovascular aneurysm repair (1)] and 48% by OSR (96). In the initial period, 61 patients were treated for rAAA (21% EVAR vs. 79% OSR), 68 in intermediate patients (47% EVAR vs. 53% OSR), and 71 in current period (83% EVAR vs. 17% OSR). Only in the current period juxta -renal rAAAs were treated by endovascular means (14%). The 30-day mortality rate was 46% in initial period (31% for EVAR vs. 50% for OSR), 64% in second period (46% in EVAR vs. 80% for OSR), and 35% in third period (25% for EVAR vs. 83% for OSR). The mean follow up did not differ between the groups, (EVAR 28.3 ± 2 months, vs. OSR 33.1 ± 3 months, P = 0.56). The survival rate did not differ between the groups; in rEVAR was 82% (SE 5%), 74% (SE 6%), 68% (SE 6.5%), and 63% (SE 7.7%) at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months, respectively, and in OSR was 76% (SE 7%), 66% (SE 8%), and 56% (SE 9.5%) at 6, 24, and 48 months, respectively (P = 0.544).

CONCLUSIONS

Through a 16-year period, the implementation of EVAR as treatment of choice for rAAAs over OSR resulted in a noticeable reduction in the 30-day mortality. rEVAR was feasible in over 80% of rAAA patients.

Predictive Parameters of Type 1A Endoleak for Elective Endovascular Aortic Repair: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

One of the most important factors that affects the success of Endovascular Aortic Repair (EVAR) treatment is the morphology of the neck of the aneurysm. Today, EVAR can be performed even in patients who do not meet the Instruction For Use criteria with hostile neck risk factors; thanks to the developing experience and technology. Our aim in this study was to determine risk factors for Type 1a endoleaks in patients who underwent EVAR and predictive factors for Type 1a endoleaks in patients with combinations of these risk factors.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective EVAR for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm in our medical center between July 2016 and January 2021 were enrolled. Of these 244 patients, 180 patients with documented preoperative and postoperative computed tomographic angiography results and a follow-up of at least 1 year were included in the study. The Mann-Whitney U test and Student's t-test were used to assess the relationship between nominal data and numerical values, and the t-test and Wilcoxon test were used to compare dependent groups. Logistic regression analysis was performed to model risk factors associated with endoleaks.

RESULTS

The results showed that a neck length less than 15 mm increased the development of type 1a endoleak by 10.4 times (P < 0.001). Furthermore, a neck diameter more than 28 mm increased the development of type 1a endoleak by 21.9 times (P = 0.04). A conical neck structure (gradual neck dilation > 2 mm) increased the development of type 1a endoleaks 4.8 times (P = 0.04). The presence of calcification (> 150 Hounsfield Unit and > 2 mm) in the neck increased the risk of type 1a endoleaks fourfold (P = 0.04). Hostile neck parameters were analyzed and patients with only 1 parameter (n = 69) had a 7.2% type 1a endoleak rate, while patients with 2 parameters (n = 15) had 26.6% and patients with more than 2 parameters (n = 11) had 45.5% type 1a endoleak rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Morphologic features of the neck structure of the aneurysm are among the most important parameters that affect the success of EVAR treatment. Alternative treatments should be considered in patients with more than 1 unfavorable neck parameter.

Evaluation of national institute for health and care excellence guidance for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms by emulating a hypothetical target trial

Objective

This retrospective study evaluates the performance of UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidelines on management of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms in a "real world setting" by emulating a hypothetical target trial with data from two European Aortic Centers.

Methods

Clinical data was retrospectively collected for all patients who had undergone ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair (rEVAR) and ruptured open surgical repair (rOSR). Survival analysis was performed comparing NICE compliance to usual care strategy. NICE compliers were defined as: female patients undergoing rEVAR; male patients >70 years old undergoing rEVAR; and male patients ≤70 years old undergoing rOSR. Hemodynamic instability was considered additionally.

Results

This multicenter study included 298 patients treated for rAAA. The majority of patients were treated with rOSR (186 rOSR vs. 112 rEVAR). Overall, 184 deaths (68 [37%] with rEVAR and 116 [63%] with rOSR) were observed during the study period. Overall survival under usual care was 69.2% at 30 days, 56.5% at one year, and 42.4% at 5 years. NICE compliance gave survival outcomes of 73.1% at 30 days, 60.2% at 1 year and 42.9% at 5 years. The risk ratios at these time points, comparing NICE-compliance to usual care, were 0.88, 0.92 and 0.99, respectively.

Conclusions

We support NICE recommendations to manage men below the age of 71 years and hemodynamic stability with rOSR. There was a slight survival advantage for NICE compliers overall, in men >70 years and women of all ages.

A Case Report on Endovascular Aortic Repair Rupture

Endovascular repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a widely accepted alternative to open surgical AAA repair. A ruptured AAA is among the emergency surgeries with the highest risk of death, with an overall mortality rate close to90%. However, the classic symptom triad for ruptured AAAs of hypotension, a pulsatile mass, and abdominal/back pain is seen in only in 25% to 50% of affected patients. Thus, many present with symptoms and signs that suggest adifferent diagnosis. Recognizing uncommon presentations and limitations of imaging and interpretation, in addition to clinical gestalt, can save many lives. This report discusses an unusual case involving a previously repaired AAA presenting with acute rupture at the endograft site.

Inverse probability of treatment analysis of open vs endovascular repair in ruptured infrarenal aortic aneurysm - Cohort study

BACKGROUND

To compare open repair (OR) with EVAR for the management of ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAA) in a cohort study over a time period of 15 years with inverse probability of treatment weights.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From 2000/01 through 2015/12 136 patients were treated for RAAA, 98 (72.1%) underwent OR, 38 (27.9%) were treated with EVAR. Thirty-day and long-term mortality (survival) were analyzed in this IRB-approved retrospective cohort study. Treatment modalities were compared using inverse probability of treatment weights to adjust for imbalances in demographic data and risk factors.

RESULTS

EVAR patients were older (75.11 ± 7.17 vs 69.79 ± 10.24; p=0.001). There was no statistical difference in gender, hypertension, COPD, CAD, or diabetes. GFR was significantly higher in OR patients (71.4 ± 31.09 vs. 53.68 ± 25.73). Postoperative dialysis was required more frequently in EVAR patients: 11% vs. 2% (p = 0.099). In the OR group, adjusted cumulative survival was 70.4% (61.1, 81.1) at 30 days, 47.0% (37.1, 59.6) at one year and 38.3% (28.6, 51.3) at 5 years. In the EVAR group the corresponding numbers were 77.0% (67.7, 87.5), 67.5% (57.0, 80.0) and 41.7% (30.4, 57.4), respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is evidence for EVAR patients exhibiting a benefit in one-year survival, while patients treated with OR may have more favorable long-term survival given they survive for at least one year. Herein we provide a statistically rigorous comparison of OR and EVAR in short and long-term outcomes with up to 15 years of follow-up.

Mortality rates and risk factors for emergent open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms in the endovascular era

The background of this paper is to report the mortality at 30 and 90 days and at mean follow-up after open abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) emergent repair and to identify predictive risk factors for 30- and 90-day mortality. Between 1997 and 2002, 104 patients underwent emergent AAA open surgery. Symptomatic and ruptured AAAs were observed, respectively, in 21 and 79% of cases. Mean patient age was 70 (SD 9.2) years. Mean aneurysm maximal diameter was 7.4 (SD 1.6) cm. Primary endpoints were 30- and 90-day mortality. Significant mortality-related risk factor identification was the secondary endpoint. Open repair trend and its related perioperative mortality with a per-year analysis and a correlation subanalysis to identify predictive mortality factor were performed. Mean follow-up time was 23 (SD 23) months. Overall, 30-day mortality was 30%. Significant mortality-related risk factors were the use of computed tomography (CT) as a preoperative diagnostic tool, AAA rupture, preoperative shock, intraoperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), use of aortic balloon occlusion, intraoperative massive blood transfusion (MBT), and development of abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). Previous abdominal surgery was identified as a protective risk factor. The mortality rate at 90 days was 44%. Significant mortality-related risk factors were AAA rupture, aortocaval fistula, peripheral artery disease (PAD), preoperative shock, CPR, MBT, and ACS. The mortality rate at follow-up was 45%. Correlation analysis showed that MBT, shock, and ACS are the most relevant predictive mortality factor at 30 and 90 days. During the transition period from open to endovascular repair, open repair mortality outcomes remained comparable with other contemporary data despite a selection bias for higher risk patients. MBT, shock, and ACS are the most pronounced predictive mortality risk factors.

Endovascular treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (pathological enlargement of the aorta) is a condition that can occur as a person ages. It is most commonly seen in men older than 65 years of age. Progressive aneurysm enlargement can lead to rupture and massive internal bleeding, which is fatal unless timely repair can be achieved. Despite improvements in perioperative care, mortality remains high (approximately 50%) after conventional open surgical repair. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), a minimally invasive technique, has been shown to reduce early morbidity and mortality as compared to conventional open surgery for planned AAA repair. More recently emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) has been used successfully to treat ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA), proving that it is feasible in select patients; however, it is unclear if eEVAR will lead to significant improvements in outcomes for these patients or if indeed it can replace conventional open repair as the preferred treatment for this lethal condition. This is an update of the review first published in 2006.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the advantages and disadvantages of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) in comparison with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). This will be determined by comparing the effects of eEVAR and conventional open surgical repair on short-term mortality, major complication rates, aneurysm exclusion (specifically endoleaks in the eEVAR treatment group), and late complications.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (last searched June 2016), CENTRAL (2016, Issue 5), and trials registries. We also checked reference lists of relevant publications.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which participants with a clinically or radiologically diagnosed RAAA were randomly allocated to eEVAR or conventional open surgical repair.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies identified for potential inclusion for eligibility. Two review authors also independently completed data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. We performed meta-analysis using fixed-effect models with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four randomised controlled trials in this review. A total of 868 participants with a clinical or radiological diagnosis of RAAA were randomised to receive either eEVAR or open surgical repair. Overall risk of bias was low, but we considered one study that performed randomisation in blocks by week and performed no allocation concealment and no blinding to be at high risk of selection bias. Another study did not adequately report random sequence generation, putting it at risk of selection bias, and two studies were underpowered. There was no clear evidence to support a difference between the two interventions for 30-day (or in-hospital) mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.16; moderate-quality evidence). There were a total of 44 endoleak events in 128 participants from three studies (low-quality evidence). Thirty-day complication outcomes (myocardial infarction, stroke, composite cardiac complications, renal complications, severe bowel ischaemia, spinal cord ischaemia, reoperation, amputation, and respiratory failure) were reported in between one and three studies, therefore we were unable to draw a robust conclusion. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for myocardial infarction, renal complications, and respiratory failure due to imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of bias. Odds ratios for complications outcomes were OR 2.38 (95% CI 0.34 to 16.53; 139 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence) for myocardial infarction; OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.21 to 5.42; 255 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence) for renal complications; and OR 3.62 (95% CI 0.14 to 95.78; 32 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence) for respiratory failure. There was low-quality evidence of a reduction in bowel ischaemia in the eEVAR treatment group, but very few events were reported (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.94), and we downgraded the evidence due to imprecision and risk of bias. Six-month and one-year outcomes were evaluated in three studies, but only results from a single study could be used for each outcome, which showed no clear evidence of a difference between the interventions. We rated six-month mortality evidence as of moderate quality due to imprecision (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.98; 116 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review are currently limited by the paucity of data. We found from the data available moderate-quality evidence suggesting there is no difference in 30-day mortality between eEVAR and open repair. Not enough information was provided for complications for us to make a well-informed conclusion, although it is possible that eEVAR is associated with a reduction in bowel ischaemia. Long-term data were lacking for both survival and late complications. More high-quality randomised controlled trials comparing eEVAR and open repair for the treatment of RAAA are needed to better understand if one method is superior to the other, or if there is no difference between the methods on relevant outcomes.

Endovascular repair or open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) may improve outcomes for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). The study aim was to compare the outcomes for eEVAR with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of RAAA.

SETTING

A systematic review of relevant publications was performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing eEVAR with open surgical repair for RAAA were included.

PARTICIPANTS

3 RCTs were included, with a total of 761 patients with RAAA.

INTERVENTIONS

Meta-analysis was performed with fixed-effects models with ORs and 95% CIs for dichotomous data and mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was short-term mortality. Secondary outcome measures included aneurysm-specific and general complication rates, quality of life and economic analysis.

RESULTS

Overall risk of bias was low. There was no difference between the 2 interventions on 30-day (or in-hospital) mortality, OR 0.91 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.22; p=0.52). 30-day complications included myocardial infarction, stroke, composite cardiac complications, renal complications, severe bowel ischaemia, spinal cord ischaemia, reoperation, amputation and respiratory failure. Reporting was incomplete, and no robust conclusion was drawn. For complication outcomes that did include at least 2 studies in the meta-analysis, there was no clear evidence to support a difference between eEVAR and open repair. Longer term outcomes and cost per patient were evaluated in only a single study, thus precluding definite conclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes between eEVAR and open repair, specifically 30-day mortality, are similar. However, further high-quality trials are required, as the paucity of data currently limits the conclusions.

Early prediction of survival after open surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Background

Scoring models are widely established in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, the importance in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA) remains unclear. Our aim was to analyze scoring systems as predictors of survival in patients undergoing open surgical repair (OSR) for RAAA.

Methods

This is a retrospective study in critically ill patients in a surgical ICU at a university hospital. Sixty-eight patients with RAAA were treated between February 2005 and June 2013. Serial measurements of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (SOFA), Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II) and Simplified Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System-28 (TISS-28) were evaluated with respect to in-hospital mortality. Eleven patients had to be excluded from this study because 6 underwent endovascular repair and 5 died before they could be admitted to the ICU.

Results

All patients underwent OSR. The initial, highest, and mean of SOFA and SAPS II scores correlated significant with in-hospital mortality. In contrast, TISS-28 was inferior and showed a smaller area under the receiver operating curve. The cut-off point for SOFA showed the best performance in terms of sensitivity and specificity. An initial SOFA score below 9 predicted an in-hospital mortality of 16.2% (95% CI, 4.3–28.1) and a score above 9 predicted an in-hospital mortality of 73.7% (95% CI, 53.8–93.5, p < 0.01). Trend analysis showed the largest effect on SAPS II. When the score increased or was unchanged within the first 48 h (score >45), the in-hospital mortality rate was 85.7% (95% CI, 67.4–100, p < 0.01) versus 31.6% (95% CI, 10.7–52.5, p = 0.01) when it decreased. On multiple regression analysis, only the mean of the SOFA score showed a significant predictive capacity with regards to mortality (odds ratio 1.77; 95% CI, 1.19–2.64; p < 0.01).

Conclusion

SOFA and SAPS II scores were able to predict in-hospital mortality in RAAA within 48 h after OSR. According to cut-off points, an increase or decrease in SOFA and SAPS II scores improved sensitivity and specificity.

Endovascular treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm

BACKGROUND

An abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) (pathological enlargement of the aorta) can develop in both men and women as they grow older. It is most commonly seen in men over the age of 65 years. Progressive aneurysm enlargement can lead to rupture and massive internal bleeding, a fatal event unless timely repair can be achieved. Despite improvements in perioperative care, mortality remains high (approximately 50%) after conventional open surgical repair. A newer minimally invasive technique, endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), has been shown to reduce early morbidity and mortality as compared to conventional open surgery for planned AAA repair. Emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) has been used successfully to treat ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA), proving that it is feasible in selected patients. However, it is not yet known if eEVAR will lead to significant improvements in outcomes for these patients or indeed if it can replace conventional open repair as the preferred treatment for this lethal condition.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the advantages and disadvantages of emergency endovascular aneurysm repair (eEVAR) in comparison with conventional open surgical repair for the treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). This will be determined by the effect on short-term mortality, major complication rates, aneurysm exclusion, and late complications when compared with the effects in patients who have had conventional open repair of RAAA.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched February 2014) and CENTRAL (2014, Issue 2). Reference lists of relevant publications were also checked.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in which patients with a clinically or radiologically diagnosed RAAA were randomly allocated to eEVAR or conventional open surgical repair.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Studies identified for potential inclusion were independently assessed for eligibility by at least two review authors. Data extraction and quality assessment were also completed independently by two review authors. Disagreements were resolved through discussion. Meta-analysis was performed using fixed-effect models with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous data and mean differences with 95% CIs for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Three randomised controlled trials were included in this review. A total of 761 patients with a clinical or radiological diagnosis of RAAA were randomised to receive either eEVAR or open surgical repair. Overall risk of bias was low but one study did not adequately report random sequence generation, putting it at risk of selection bias, two studies did not report on outcomes identified in their protocol, indicating reporting bias, and one study was underpowered. There was no clear evidence to support a difference between the two interventions on 30-day (or in-hospital) mortality, OR of 0.91 (95% CI 0.67 to 1.22; P = 0.52). The 30-day complications included myocardial infarction, stroke, composite cardiac complications, renal complications, severe bowel ischaemia, spinal cord ischaemia, re-operation, amputation, and respiratory failure. Individual complication outcomes were reported in only one or two studies and therefore no robust conclusion can currently be drawn. For complication outcomes that did include at least two studies in the meta-analysis there was no clear evidence to support a difference between eEVAR and open repair. Six-month outcomes were evaluated in only a single study, which included mortality and re-operation, with no clear evidence of a difference between the interventions and no overall association. Cost per patient was only evaluated in a single study and therefore no overall associations can currently be derived.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of this review are currently limited by the paucity of data. From the data available there is no difference in the outcomes evaluated in this review between eEVAR and open repair, specifically 30-day mortality. Not enough information was provided for complications in order to make a well informed conclusion at this time. Long-term data are lacking for both survival and late complications. More high quality, randomised controlled trials comparing eEVAR and open repair for the treatment of RAAA are needed in order to better understand if one method is superior to the other, or if there is no difference between the methods on relevant outcomes.

Endovascular aneurysm repair in emergent ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm with a 'real' hostile neck and severely tortuous iliac artery of an elderly patient

Background

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been a revolutionary development in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Meanwhile, unfavorable anatomy of the aneurysm has always been a challenge to vascular surgeons, and the application of EVAR in emergent and elderly patients are still in dispute.

Case presentation

A 79-year-old woman presented as an emergency of abdominal pain with acute hypotension, heart rate elevation and a rapid decrease of hemoglobin. Emergent computed tomographic angiography (CTA) showed a ruptured AAA (rAAA) extending from below the opening of bilateral renal arteries down to the celiac artery and elongated to both common iliac arteries. The hostile neck and severely tortuous iliac artery made the following procedure a great challenge. An emergent endovascular approach was performed in which an excluder aortic main body was deployed below the origin of the bilateral renal arteries covering the ruptured aortic segment. Two iliac legs were placed superior to the opening of the right hypogastric respectively. In order to avoid the type Ib endoleak, we tried to deploy another cuff above the bifurcation of the iliac artery. However, the severely tortuous right iliac artery made this procedure extremely difficult, and a balloon-assisted technique was used in order to keep the stiff wire stable. Another iliac leg was placed above the bifurcation of the left iliac artery. The following angiography showed a severe Ia endoleak in the proximal neck and therefore, a cuff was deployed distal to opening of the left renal artery with off-the-shelf solution. The patient had an uneventful recovery with a resolution of the rAAA. She is well and symptom-free 6 months later.

Conclusion

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in emergent elderly rAAA with hostile neck and severe tortuous iliac artery is extremely challenging, and endovascular management with integrated technique is feasible and may achieve a satisfactory early result.

Emergent endovascular vs. open surgery repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms: a meta-analysis

Objectives

To systematically review studies comparing peri-operative mortality and length of hospital stay in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) who underwent endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) to patients who underwent open surgical repair (OSR).

Methods

The Medline, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases were searched until Apr 30, 2013 using keywords such as abdominal aortic aneurysm, emergent, emergency, rupture, leaking, acute, endovascular, stent, graft, and endoscopic. The primary outcome was peri-operative mortality and the secondary outcome was length of hospital stay.

Results

A total of 18 studies (2 randomized controlled trials, 5 prospective studies, and 11 retrospective studies) with a total of 135,734 rAAA patients were included. rAAA patients who underwent EVAR had significantly lower peri-operative mortality compared to those who underwent OSR (overall OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.58 to 0.67, P<0.001). rAAA patients with EVAR also had a significantly shorter mean length of hospital stay compared to those with OSR (difference in mean length of stay ranged from −2.00 to −19.10 days, with the overall estimate being −5.25 days (95% CI = −9.23 to −1.26, P = 0.010). There was no publication bias and sensitivity analysis showed good reliability.

Conclusions

EVAR confers significant benefits in terms of peri-operative mortality and length of hospital stay. There is a need for more randomized controlled trials to compare outcomes of EVAR and OSR for rAAA.

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the state of play

BACKGROUND

Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) remains a challenging problem: 2,410 cases were treated in Germany in 2010. Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm should be suspected in patients over age 50 who complain of pain in the abdomen or back and in whom examination reveals a pulsatile abdominal mass. The incidence of hospitalization for rAAA is 12 per 100,000 persons over age 65 per year (statistics for Germany, 2010), and rAAA carries an overall mortality of 80%.

METHODS

The current state of knowledge of rAAA was surveyed in a selective review of pertinent literature retrieved by an electronic search in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases with the keywords "abdominal aortic aneurysm," "ruptured," "open repair," and "endovascular." Publications in English or German up to and including March 2012 were considered, among them the Clinical Practice Guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (1).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Recent reports show that the treatment of rAAA is still fraught with high mortality and high perioperative morbidity. Improvement is needed. It would be advisable for the care of rAAA to be centralized in specialized vascular centers implementing defined treatment pathways. Systematic screening, too, would be beneficial. An increasing number of reports suggest that endovascular treatment with stent prostheses improves outcomes; more definitive evidence on this matter will come from prospective, randomized trials that are now in progress.