OBJECTIVETo compare the perioperative outcome between the endovascular repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

METHODSFrom January 2006 to January 2013, totally 66 patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) treated by surgery were retrospectively analyzed in Department of vascular surgery, People's Liberation Army General Hospital. According to the repair method, all the subjects were divided into EVAR group and OSR group. EVAR group included 40 patients, 30 patients were male, 10 patients were female, aged from 47 to 78 with a mean of (71 ± 7) years. OSR group included 26 patients, 21 patients were male, aged from 45 to 87 with a mean of (72 ± 9) years. The difference of the operation time, the amount of suspended red blood cells, ICU stay time, case fatality rate, adverse event rate and the difference of the two intervention rate were compared between the 2 groups by χ(2) test and t test.

RESULTSThere were significant differences between the 2 groups in operation time, the amount of suspended red blood cells, ICU stay time, case fatality rate, adverse event rate ((183 ± 44) minutes vs. (384 ± 108) minutes, t = -10.59, P = 0.00; (0.4 ± 0.8) units vs. (1.1 ± 1.8) units, t = -2.19, P = 0.03; (3.0 ± 1.8) d vs. (8.5 ± 5.1) d, t = -6.34, P = 0.00; 20.0% (8/40) vs. 46.2% (12/26), χ(2) = 5.10, P = 0.02; 25.0% (10/40) vs. 53.8% (14/26), χ(2) = 5.67, P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in frozen plasma quantities and the two intervention rate between the 2 groups (t = -1.98, P = 0.05; χ(2) = 0.49, P = 0.48).

CONCLUSIONSEVAR decreases the perioperative mortality and adverse event of rAAA compared with OSR. More studies are necessary to compare the middle and long-outcome between EVAR and OSR of rAAA.