Endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm is superior to open repair: Propensity-matched analysis in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

Objective: The few randomized trials comparing endovascular with open surgical repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) were poorly designed and heavily criticized. The short-term and midterm survival advantages of endovascular repair remain unclear. We sought to compare the two treatment modalities using a propensity-matched analysis in a real-world setting.
Methods: All ruptured cases of open surgical repair (rOSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (rEVAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative were analyzed (2003-2018). Raw and propensity-matched rEVAR and rOSR cohorts were compared. Primary and secondary outcomes included postoperative major adverse events (cardiovascular, pulmonary, renal, bowel or limb ischemia, reoperation) and 30-day and 1-year mortality. Univariate, multivariate, and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed.
Results: There were 4929 rAAA repairs performed, 2749 rEVAR and 2180 rOSR. Compared with rEVAR patients, rOSR patients had higher rates of myocardial ischemic events (15% vs 10%; P < .001), major adverse events (67% vs 37%; P < .001), and 30-day death (34% vs 21%; P < .001). On adjusted analysis, rOSR was predictive of 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-2.2). After 1:1 matching, the study cohort consisted of 724 pairs of rOSR and rEVAR. The rOSR patients had twice the length of stay (median, 10 days [interquartile range, 5-19 days] vs 5 days [interquartile range, 3-10 days]; P < .001). Univariate analysis demonstrated persistent increased 30-day mortality after rOSR (32% vs 18%; P < .001) and higher rates of myocardial infarction (14% rOSR vs 8% rEVAR; P = .002), respiratory complications (38% vs 20%; P < .001), and acute kidney injury (42% vs 26%; P < .001). Overall major adverse event rate was higher after rOSR (68% vs 35%; P < .001). Multivariable regression analysis of the propensity-matched pairs demonstrated that rOSR was associated with double the 30-day mortality compared with rEVAR (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-2.7). All-cause 1-year survival was 73% and 59% after rEVAR and rOSR in the propensity-matched cohort, respectively (P < .001).
Conclusions: This is one of the largest studies of rAAA demonstrating clear short-term and midterm survival benefits of rEVAR over rOSR that persisted after matching on all major demographic, comorbid, and anatomic variables. Furthermore, patients who survived rOSR had twice the length of stay with increased rates of complications compared with rEVAR patients. These data suggest a more aggressive endovascular approach for rAAA in patients with suitable anatomy.
(Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)