Population-based long-term outcomes of open versus endovascular aortic repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms

Konrad Salata, Mohamad A. Hussain, Charles de Mestral, Elisa Greco, Hadeel Awartani, Badr A. Aljabri, Muhammad Mamdani, Thomas L. Forbes, Deepak L. Bhatt, Subodh Verma, Mohammed Al-Omran

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations


Objective: Existing data regarding endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) are conflicting in their findings. The purpose of this paper was to determine the long-term outcomes of EVAR vs open surgical repair (OSR) for treatment of rAAA. Methods: A population-based retrospective cohort study of all patients 40 years or more that underwent OSR or EVAR of rAAA in Ontario, Canada, from 2003 to 2016 was conducted. Administrative data from the province of Ontario was used as the data source. The propensity for repair approach was calculated using a logistic regression model including all covariates and used for inverse probability of treatment weighting. Cox proportional hazards regression was conducted using the weighted cohort to determine the survival and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-free survival of EVAR relative to OSR for rAAA up to 10 years after repair. Results: A total of 2692 rAAA (261 EVAR [10%] and 2431 OSR [90%]) repairs were recorded from April 1, 2003, to March 31, 2016. Mean follow-up for the entire cohort was 3.4 years (standard deviation [SD], 3.9 years), with a maximum follow-up of 14.0 years. OSR patients were followed for a mean of 3.5 years (SD, 4.0 years) and maximum of 14.0 years, and EVAR patients were followed for a mean of 2.7 years (SD, 2.7 years) and a maximum of 11.4 years. Median survival was 2.7 years overall, and 2.5 and 3.7 years for OSR and EVAR patients, respectively. There were no significant baseline differences between EVAR and OSR patients after inverse probability of treatment weighting. EVAR patients were at lower hazard for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.65; P <.01), and MACE (hazard ratio, 0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.66; P <.01) within 30 days of repair. There were no statistically significant differences between EVAR and OSR in the hazard for all-cause mortality or MACE from 30 days to 5 years, and 5 to 10 years. Despite this, the upfront mortality and MACE benefits of EVAR persisted for more than 4.5 years after repair. Conclusions: This population-based cohort study using administrative data from Ontario, Canada, demonstrated lower hazards for all-cause mortality and MACE within 30 days of operation in favor of EVAR, but no differences in the mid- or longer-term results. More work is needed to understand and improve the long-term outcomes of ruptured endovascular aortic aneurysm repair and ruptured open surgical repair.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1867-1878.e8
JournalJournal of Vascular Surgery
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 2020
Externally publishedYes


  • Endovascular aortic repair
  • Long-term outcomes
  • Open surgical repair
  • Population-based cohort
  • Propensity score methods
  • Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm


Dive into the research topics of 'Population-based long-term outcomes of open versus endovascular aortic repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this