Open versus endo: early experience with endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair beyond the clinical trials.

Objective: To analyze and compare open (OR) versus endovascular (EVAR) abdominal aortic aneurysm repair at our institution.
Methods: EVAR was attempted in 256 patients at the University of Tennessee Medical Center, Knoxville, between December 1999 and November 2002. One hundred forty patients underwent attempted EVAR, and 116 underwent OR. All patients were included on an intent-to-treat basis, and results were reviewed retrospectively. Statistical methods included the Student t test and chi-square analysis.
Results: Patients were age matched between the 2 groups (70.2 years versus 69.0 years; P = .936). Patients in the OR group had significantly higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classes than the EVAR group (2.96 versus 3.07; P = .006). However, there was no difference between the groups, OR versus EVAR, with respect to the presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (55% versus 46%; P = .129), coronary artery disease (69% versus 66%; P = .638), diabetes mellitus (12% versus 18%; P = .167), mean left ventricular ejection fraction (51.8% versus 53.9%; P = .28), or mean preoperative creatinine level (1.2 mg/dL versus 1.1 mg/dL; P = .167). Tobacco use was more prevalent in the OR group (78.4% versus 64.2%; P = .013), and known carotid artery disease was more prevalent in the EVAR group (20.0% versus 6.9%; P = .003). The EVAR group had significantly shorter lengths of stay ( 4.2 versus 9.0 days; P = .000), intensive care unit days (0 versus 3.2; P = .000), time in the operating room (119.6 minutes versus 225.7 minutes; P = .000), and estimated blood loss (189.1 mL versus 897.9 mL; P = .000). Mean aneurysm size was larger in the OR group (5.6 cm versus 4.9 cm; P = .000). Perioperative complications occurred in 31 patients in the OR group and 5 in the EVAR group (P = .000). Two perioperative deaths occurred in the OR group and none in the EVAR group. As of this writing there has been no significant difference in all-cause mortality in the 2 groups (OR 9.6% versus EVAR 8.0%; P = .651). Seven patients in the EVAR group needed secondary interventions. Six were managed with endovascular techniques, and 1 underwent femoral-femoral bypass.
Conclusions: Patients who undergo EVAR have significantly less morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period than do equally matched patients undergoing open repair. In midterm follow-up (2-5 years), mortality is no different. Morbidity conferred by the need for secondary intervention in the endovascular group is minimal.