Outcomes after endovascular repair (EVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (rAAAs) have been widely published. There is, however, controversy on the role of the use of aortouniiliac endoprosthesis (AUI) versus modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis (MUB) for repair of rAAAs. We study and compare 30-day outcomes after use of AUI and MUB for all rAAAs focusing specifically on patients with instability.Materials and Methods:
Patients who underwent EVAR for rAAA (n = 425) using AUI (n = 55; 12.9%) and MUB (n = 370; 87.1%) were identified from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2005-2010) database. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.Results:
No significant difference (P > .5) was seen in comorbidities between patients who underwent EVAR with AUI or MUB; there was also no change in endoprosthesis use from 2005 to 2010 (P = .7). Patients who underwent EVAR with AUI more commonly had a history of peripheral arterial procedure (10.9% vs 4.6%; P = .053) and preoperative transfusion of >4 U packed red blood cells (18.2% vs 6.8%; P = .004). Use of AUI versus MUB was associated with more 30-day wound complications (16.4% vs 6.2%; P = .01), return to operating room (38.2% vs 20.0%; P = .003), and mortality (34.5% vs 21.4%; P = .03). On multivariable analysis, use of AUI was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio: 2.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-5.3). On subanalysis of the cohort for only the patients with unstable rAAA (n = 159; AUI = 29 and MUB = 130), 30-day mortality for AUI versus MUB was still higher but not statistically significant (44.8% vs 32.3%; P = .2).Conclusion:
Endovascular repair for ruptured AAA using aortouniliac endoprosthesis is associated with higher 30-day mortality than using modular or unibody bifurcated endoprosthesis.