Aim: to compare the outcome of patients whose abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) ruptured following endoluminal repair with those whose AAA ruptured prior to treatment. Patients: over a 4-year period 434 patients underwent treatment for AAA with conventional open (n = 253) and endoluminal repair (n = 181). Of those having open repair, 216 patients had elective operations while 41 had operations for ruptured AAA. Four patients with ruptured AAA had undergone endoluminal repair previously (Group I) while the remaining 37 patients ruptured de novo (Group II). The patients in both groups were similar in age and sex but differed clinically. All four patients in Group I had major medical co-morbidities versus 56% in Group II (p < 0.05). All patients in group I had a known endoleak following endoluminal repair. All patients underwent open repair. Results: the proportion of patients presenting with hypotension in Group I (1/4) was significantly less than in Group II (30/37). The difference in 30-day mortality for Group I (0%) compared with that for Group II (43%) was significant. The four patients in Group I remain alive and well at follow-up 22 months after operation. The outcome for Group I was better than Group II despite the higher incidence of medical co-morbidities. Conclusion: endoluminal AAA repair complicated by a persistent endoleak does not protect from rupture, which may not be accompanied by such major haemodynamic changes and high mortality as rupture de novo. Further long-term results in more patients are required to confirm this intermediate level of protection.
|Number of pages||5|
|Journal||European Journal of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery|
|Publication status||Published - Oct 1999|
- Endoluminal repair
- Endovascular repair
- Ruptured aortic aneurysm