Total amount: € 0,00
Official Journal of the , the International Union of Phlebology and the
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,899
Online ISSN 1827-1839
Ioannidis O. 1, Trellopoulos G. 2, Tamouridis G. 1, Konstantinidis K. 2, Megalopoulos A. 2
1 Department of General and Vascular Surgery, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland;
2 Warsaw School of Social Sciences and Humanities, Poznań, Poland
AIM: The treatment of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms is a constant challenge for vascular surgeons and can be achieved either by endovascular repair or by an open surgical technique. Endovascular repair presents a higher 30-day survival rate. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical and anatomical characteristics and the outcomes of these two treatment techniques.
METHODS: Our study sample comprised patients who presented at the emergency department of a General Regional Hospital with rupture of an abdominal aortic aneurysm between January 2003 and December 2008. Of the 43 patients who were treated, 23 underwent open surgical repair and 20 underwent endovascular repair.
RESULTS: Comorbidities, age, clinical presentation and anatomical characteristics didn’t present statistically significant differences in the two groups. Patients in the endovascular repair group were transfused with less units of blood and fresh frozen plasma (P=0.001) and had shorter stay in the intensive care unit (P=0.042). The 30-day mortality rate was 43% for open surgical repair and 35% for endovascular treatment (P=0.627), while the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 61% and 50% (P=0.474), respectively.
CONCLUSION: When certain anatomical characteristics are present and the hemodynamic condition of the patient allows it, endovascular treatment appears to be associated with better survival rates, both 30-day and overall.