Open Surgery (OS) Versus Endovascular Aneurysm Repair (EVAR) for Hemodynamically Stable and Unstable Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (Raaa)

Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is an alternative treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAA) in hemodynamically (hd) stable patients. Treatment for patients with hd-unstable rAAA remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of EVAR and open surgery (OS) in hd-stable and hd-unstable rAAA patients using meta-analysis. The first part of this study included 48 articles that reported the treatment outcomes of rAAA managed with EVAR (n = 9610) and OS (n = 93867). The second part, which is the focus of this study, included 5 out of 48 articles, which further reported treatment results in hd-stable (n = 198) and hd-unstable (n = 185) patients. When heterogeneity among the groups was observed, a random-effects model was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratios (OR) or in cases of non-heterogeneity, a fixed-effects model analysis was employed. In the first part of this study, the in-hospital mortality rate was found to be lower in the EVAR group than in the OS group (29.9 vs 40.8 %; OR 0.59; 95 % CI 0.52–0.66; P < 0.01). In the second part of this study, 383 patients from 5 articles were included: 152 patients were treated by EVAR, and 231 were treated by OS. The total mortality was 147/383 (38.4 %), while the mortality of the EVAR group and the OS group was 25.7 % (39/152) and 46.8 % (108/231), respectively. In the hd-stable group, the in-hospital mortality after EVAR was significantly lower than that after OS [18.9 % (18/95) vs 28.2 % (29/103); OR 0.47; 95 % CI 0.22–0.97; P = 0.04]. For the hd-unstable rAAA patients, the in-hospital mortality after EVAR was significantly lower than that after OS [36.8 % (21/57) vs 61.7 % (79/128); OR 0.40; 95 % CI 0.20–0.79; P < 0.01]. This study indicated that compared with OS, EVAR in hd-unstable rAAA patients is associated with improved outcomes. Available publications are currently limited; thus, the best treatment strategy for this subgroup of patients remains unclear. Further clinical studies are needed to provide more detailed data, such as the shock index and long-term results.