Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms is a Valid Alternative to Open Repair also in Patients Treated Outside of Instructions for Use Criteria.

PURPOSE

It remains unclear whether endovascular aneurysm repair, in the long term, is less effective than open surgery due to need for reinterventions and close monitoring. We aimed to evaluate this matter in a real-life cohort.

METHODS

We collected consecutive patients treated with EVAR or OSR between January 2005 and December 2013. Primary outcomes were 30-day, 90-day and long-term all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day reintervention rate and reintervention-free survival. We evaluated also a subpopulation who did not adhere to IFU.

RESULTS

The inclusion criteria were met by 416 patients. 258 (62%) received EVAR, while 158 (38%) underwent OSR. The 30- or 90-day mortality was similar between groups (p = 0.272 and p = 0.346), as ARM (p = 0.652). The 30-day reintervention rate was higher in the OSR group (p < 0.001), but during follow-up, it was significantly higher in the EVAR group (log-rank: 0.026). There were 114 (44.2%) non-IFU patients in the EVAR group, and we compared them with OSR group. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality at 30 or 90 days, nor in the long term (p = 1; p = 1 and p = 0.062). ARM was not affected by the procedure technique (p = 0.136). The short-term reintervention rate was higher in the OSR group (p = 0.003), while in the long-term EVAR, patients experienced more reinterventions (log-rank = 0.0.43).

CONCLUSION

No significant difference in survival was found between EVAR and OSR, independent of adherence to IFU. EVAR may be considered for surgical candidates.