Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Surgical Repair and Endovascular Stent for the Treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm
10.5758/vsi.2017.33.4.140
- Author:
Jun Ho YANG
1
;
Jong Woo KIM
;
Ho Chul CHOI
;
Hyun Oh PARK
;
In Seok JANG
;
Chung Eun LEE
;
Seong Ho MOON
;
Jeong Hun BYUN
;
Jun Young CHOI
Author Information
1. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Gyeongsang National University Hospital, Gyeongsang National University School of Medicine, Jinju, Korea. jychoi@gnu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Aorta;
Aneurysm;
General surgery;
Endovascular procedure
- MeSH:
Aneurysm;
Aorta;
Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal;
Endovascular Procedures;
Follow-Up Studies;
Freedom;
Hospital Mortality;
Humans;
Length of Stay;
Medical Records;
Retrospective Studies;
Stents
- From:Vascular Specialist International
2017;33(4):140-145
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: This study was performed to compare the treatment outcomes between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) in a South Korean population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the medical records of 99 patients with AAAs who were managed at Gyeongsang National University Hospital between January 2005 and December 2014. We reviewed the demographic characteristics and perioperative treatment outcomes of patients with AAA undergoing EVAR or OSR. In-hospital mortality and reintervention rates were assessed and compared between the EVAR and OSR groups. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was not significantly higher in the OSR group versus the EVAR group (3.8% vs. 8.7%, respectively, P=0.41). Intervention time (209.6 mins vs. 350.9 mins, P < 0.001) and length of hospital stay (7.79 days vs. 17.46 days, P < 0.001) were significantly longer in the OSR group vs. the EVAR group. Median follow-up time was 24.1±20 months for the EVAR group and 43.9±28 months for the OSR group. The cumulative rate of freedom from reintervention at 60 months was 62.0% for the EVAR group and 100% for the OSR group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EVAR was favorable in terms of intervention time and length of hospital stay, but the long-term durability of EVAR remains open for further debate.
