Endovascular versus open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysma single centre experience

For suitable patients, EVAR offers reduced perioperative mortality, reduced hospital and ICU stay and reduced costs. Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is associated with improved perioperative morbidity but no difference in 8-year outcomes when compared to open repair. We examined perioperative outcomes in a single centre over a 3-year period. Data on abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair was retrospectively audited from theatre logbooks, HIPE records and a prospectively recorded database over a 3 year period from 2007 to 2009. During this period all patients with AAA with favourable anatomy were offered endovascular repair. Between 2007 and 2009, 57 patients underwent EVAR, of which 40 were asymptomatic and 17 were symptomatic. One patient was a redo repair for a Type 3 endoleak, 1 patient had a ruptured external iliac artery during procedure and had a delayed repair and there was one conversion to open repair. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. 41 patients underwent open repair in the same time period, but 17 of these were elective. Postoperative length of stay (POLOS) and ICU bed usage was significantly shorter when elective open and EVAR cases were compared. This compensates for the more expensive graft used in EVAR compared with open repair. (8,500 euro vs 689 euro (bifurcated graft) respectively). Conflict of interest: None. Disclosures: None.