OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to clarify whether the findings of the randomized studies of repair method (open aortic repair [OAR] vs endovascular aneurysm repair [EVAR]) concerning short-term and midterm survival for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (RAAAs) could be confirmed in a contemporary, nationwide, and unselected population.

METHODS

This cohort study is based on prospectively collected data from Swedvasc, a nationwide vascular registry, including all 29 hospitals performing surgery for RAAA in Sweden (3 district, 19 county, and 7 university hospitals) during 2013 to 2015. All 702 patients operated on for RAAA during this time were included. Open surgery and endovascular repair, analyzed on the basis of individual patient repair (OAR vs EVAR) and hospital repair practice (OAR-only vs OAR/EVAR), were compared for short-term and midterm adjusted survival (0-90 days and 3 months-3 years).

RESULTS

Endovascular repair was used for 37% (260/702) of the aneurysms. The adjusted hazard ratio after OAR was 1.30 (0.95-1.77; P = .098; n = 702) for 0 to 90 days and 0.63 (0.43-0.93; P = .021; n = 491) for 3 months to 3 years of follow-up compared with EVAR. The adjusted hazard ratio for a practice of OAR-only was 0.73 (0.54-1.00; P = .047; n = 702) for 0 to 90 days and 0.68 (0.45-1.05; P = .080; n = 491) for 3 months to 3 years of follow-up compared with a practice of OAR/EVAR. No interaction between repair practice and short-term survival could be shown for either sex or age.

CONCLUSIONS

An OAR/EVAR practice for RAAA is not superior to an OAR-only practice with respect to survival at short-term or midterm follow-up. The results are even compatible with an advantage of OAR-only practice vs OAR/EVAR practice for both follow-up periods. There is no extra benefit for either female or elderly patients with an OAR/EVAR practice.