Efficacy and prognostic factors of open surgical repair and endovascular repair in patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.
10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2025.250159
- Author:
Lei ZHANG
1
,
2
;
Dexiang XIA
1
;
Pengcheng GUO
1
;
Xin LI
1
,
3
;
Chang SHU
1
,
4
Author Information
1. Department of Vascular Surgery, Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha
2. zhanglei2022@csu.edu.cn.
3. lixin1981@csu.edu.cn.
4. shuchang@csu.edu.cn.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
endovascular repair;
open surgical repair;
risk factors;
ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm;
survival rate
- MeSH:
Humans;
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal/mortality*;
Endovascular Procedures/methods*;
Retrospective Studies;
Male;
Female;
Prognosis;
Aged;
Aortic Rupture/mortality*;
Middle Aged;
Treatment Outcome;
Aged, 80 and over
- From:
Journal of Central South University(Medical Sciences)
2025;50(7):1158-1166
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES:Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is a life-threatening vascular emergency with extremely high in-hospital mortality. Open surgical repair (OSR) was historically the only treatment option but is associated with substantial trauma and perioperative risk. In recent years, endovascular repair (EVAR) has gained widespread use due to its minimally invasive nature and faster recovery, becoming the preferred option for anatomically suitable patients in many centers. However, controversy remains regarding the long-term survival benefits of EVAR compared with OSR and key prognostic factors affecting outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of OSR and EVAR for rAAA and identify independent predictors of postoperative survival to guide clinical decision-making.
METHODS:A retrospective analysis was conducted on 83 patients diagnosed with rAAA and treated surgically in the Department of Vascular Surgery, the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, between January 2013 and December 2022. Patients were divided into an OSR group and an EVAR group based on surgical approach. Baseline clinical characteristics, perioperative data, and follow-up outcomes were compared between groups. Long-term survival was analyzed, and univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine independent prognostic factors.
RESULTS:Among the 83 patients, 32 (38.6%) underwent OSR and 51 (61.4%) received EVAR, with the proportion of EVAR steadily increasing to nearly 80% in the most recent 5 years. Patients in the EVAR group were older [(68.76±8.57) years vs (60.59±13.24) years, P=0.012], and had a lower proportion of males (76.5% vs 96.9%, P=0.013). EVAR significantly reduced operating time [(181.86±69.87) min vs (291.09±60.33) min] and hospital stay [(12.14±6.31) days vs (16.22±7.89) days (P<0.05)], but total hospitalization costs were markedly higher [(208 735.84±101 394.19) yuan vs (84 893.35±40 668.56) yuan, P<0.001]. There were no significant differences between groups in 30-day mortality (15.6% vs 15.7%), aneurysm-related mortality (9.4% vs 11.7%), overall mortality (28.1% vs 29.4%), or re-intervention rate (0 vs 5.9%) (P>0.05). The median follow-up time was 54.6 months (range, 12-144 months). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed comparable cumulative survival rates between OSR and EVAR (82.7% vs 76.2%, P=0.420). Cox regression identified hyperlipidemia [hazard ratio (HR)=2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 4.19, P=0.005] and elevated preoperative serum creatinine (HR=3.33, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.55, P<0.001) as significant predictors of poor prognosis. Both factors remained independently associated with mortality in the multivariate model (hyperlipidemia: HR=2.02, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.70; elevated serum creatinine: HR=2.77, 95% CI 1.40 to 5.47; P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS:EVAR offeres advantages in operative and recovery times, though its long-term survival outcomes are comparable to OSR. A history of hyperlipidemia and elevated preoperative creatinine levels are independent predictors of poor prognosis. Surgical approach should be chosen based on anatomical feasibility and patient condition, with close management of lipid levels and renal function to improve outcomes.
