Comparison of Efficacy of Endovascular Aneurysm Repair Versus Open Surgical Repair in Middle/High-Risk Patients With Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.

Abstract

To explore the efficacy of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) compared with traditional open surgical repair (OSR) in the treatment of middle/high-risk patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). With a retrospective method, we analyzed the clinical data of 57 patients with middle/high-risk AAA admitted to Linyi People's Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University from January 2010 to January 2014. Twenty-eight of the 57 patients received EVAR and 29 others received OSR. Statistical analysis was conducted by the design of spreadsheet according to preoperative, intraoperative, perioperative, and postoperative follow-up relevant information. Our study showed that the difference in baseline characteristics of different therapies in middle/high-risk AAA patients was not statistically significant in preoperative period (P > 0.05). In intraoperative period, the efficacy of middle/high-risk AAA patients in EVAR group was significantly superior to OSR group in terms of blood loss, blood transfusion, and general anesthesia rate (all P < 0.01). In perioperative period, the ICU observation time and the average fasting time of middle/high-risk AAA patients in EVAR group were remarkably lower than OSR group (all P < 0.01), but the average hospital stay and the operation cost of middle/high-risk AAA patients in EVAR group were notably higher than OSR group. In postoperative follow-up period, OSR group was identified with a lower incidence of surgery-related complications than EVAR group (P < 0.05), but EVAR group was demonstrated with a higher survival rate than OSR group (P < 0.05); after 12 months of follow-up, SF-36 scale scores in OSR group were higher than EVAR group (P < 0.05). In conclusion, EVAR may have a better short-term effect, whereas OSR may have a better long-term effect in the treatment of middle/high-risk AAA patients.