Endovascular versus open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: early term results of a single centre             XU Yong-le, GUO Wei, LIU Xiao-ping, et al. Department of Vascular Surgery, General Hospital of PLA, Beijing 100853, China
Corresponding author: GUO Wei, E-mail：pla301dml@vip.sina.com
Abstract    Objective    To compare perioperative mortality and other important early term data after endovascular repair (EVAR) and open repair (OR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA), and evaluate the different procedures. Methods    Thirty-seven records were retrospectively reviewed from January 2009 to May 2012 in Department of Vascular Surgery, General Hospital of PLA for repair of rAAAs. The patients were divided into two different groups by the repair method, which were rEVAR vs rOR. Results Twenty-four rAAAs were repaired by rEVAR and 13 by rOR. Perioperative mortality was 16.7% for rEVAR and 30.8% for rOR (P=0.413). Operating time was 174 min for rEVAR and 372 min for rOR (P=0.000). Blood to lose was 213mL for rEVAR and 4008mL for rOR (P=0.000). Blood to transfuse was 1849mL for rEVAR and 4692mL for rOR (P=0.002). ICU stay was 2.6 days for rEVAR and 8.6 days for rOR (P=0.012). LOS was 12.5 days for rEVAR, and 21.4 days for rOR (P=0.025). The hospitalization charges were similar between the two groups. Conclusion    EVAR is a safe and effective option for treatment of rAAAs compared with open repair. EVAR should be considered as the first-line treatment of rAAAs if adequate skills, facilities and protocols are available.