Outcomes of endovascular treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

INTRODUCTION: The successful application of endovascular techniques for the elective repair of abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) has stimulated a strong interest in their possible use in dealing with a long-standing surgical challenge: the ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (RAAA). The use of a conventional open procedure to repair ruptured aneurysms is associated with a high operative mortality of 45% to 50%. In this study, we evaluated the current frequency of endovascular repair of RAAAs in four large states and the impact of this technique on patient outcome. METHODS: We examined discharge data sets from 2000 through 2003 from the four states of California, Florida, New Jersey, and New York, whose combined population represents almost a third of the United States population. Proportions and trends were analyzed by chi2 analysis and continuous variables by the Student's t test. RESULTS: We found that since the year 2000, endovascular repair has begun to emerge as a viable treatment option for RAAAs, accounting for the repair of 6.2% of cases in 2003. During the same period, the use of open procedures for RAAAs declined. The overall mortality rate for the 4-year period was significantly lower for endovascular vs open repair (39.3% vs. 47.7%, P = .005). Moreover, compared with open repair, endovascular repair resulted in a significantly lower rate of pulmonary, renal, and bleeding complications. Survival after endovascular repair correlated with hospital experience, as assessed by the overall volume of elective and nonelective endovascular procedures. For endovascular repairs, mortality ranged from 45.9% for small volume hospitals to 26% for large volume hospitals (P = .0011). Volume was also a determinant of mortality for open repairs, albeit to a much lesser extent (51.5% for small volume hospitals, 44.3% for large volume hospitals; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: We observed a benefit to using endovascular procedures for RAAAs in institutions with significant endovascular experience; however, the analysis of administrative data cannot rule out selection bias as an explanation of better outcomes. These data strongly endorse the need for prospective studies to clarify to what extent the improved survival in RAAA patients is to be attributed to the endovascular approach rather than the selection of low-risk patients.