Treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm after endovascular abdominal aortic repair: A comparison with patients without prior treatment

J Vasc Surg. 2009 Mar;49(3):582-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2008.10.032. Epub 2009 Jan 9.

Abstract

Objective: A retrospective analysis of immediate outcomes following aneurysm rupture (rAAA) in two groups: patients previously treated at our center with primary endovascular repair (EVAR) and patients without previous EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) in an 8-year period.

Methods: Fourteen patients with a confirmed rAAA identified throughout the follow-up period following primary EVAR repair at our center (from a population of 820 AAA treated at our center in election) were retrospectively compared with 155 patients without previous EVAR in the same time period, from the introduction of an intention-to-treat protocol with EVAR for rAAA in January 1999. Primary study outcomes included 30-day mortality and severe systemic complications following rAAA correction with both open and EVAR treatments.

Results: In the 14 patients secondary interventions were necessary throughout follow-up prior to rupture in 43% (6/14). The mean time to rupture was 50.23 months (9-113). The mean increase in maximum aneurysmal diameter at rupture was 18.39 mm. Type of endoleaks observed at rupture: 35.7% I proximal, 35.7% III contralateral stump disconnection, 14.3% I distal, 14.3% III midgraft tear: treatment at rupture included five EVAR corrections with aortouniiliac endografts, four EVAR corrections with extensions, and five surgical conversions. Thirty-day mortality between the two groups, 28.5% (patients with prior EVAR) 38.7% (patients without prior EVAR), and severe systemic complications, 50% vs 37.6%, were not found to be statistically significant. Hemodynamic instability, 36% (patients with prior EVAR) 63% (patients without prior EVAR), was found to be an independent predictor of 30-day mortality (P < .0001), whereas severe systemic complications, 50% vs 33.5%, did not influence the same outcome (P = .852).

Conclusions: In terms of mortality, it would be logical to expect a protection from the endograft in patients with previous EVAR. A trend seems to confirm this assumption, but no statistical significance was found, which may be due to the small population size.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study

MeSH terms

  • Aged
  • Aged, 80 and over
  • Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal / mortality
  • Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal / physiopathology
  • Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal / surgery*
  • Aortic Rupture / mortality
  • Aortic Rupture / physiopathology
  • Aortic Rupture / surgery*
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation* / adverse effects
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation* / instrumentation
  • Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation* / mortality
  • Female
  • Hemodynamics
  • Hospital Mortality
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Prosthesis Design
  • Prosthesis Failure
  • Reoperation
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Stents
  • Time Factors
  • Treatment Outcome