Mid-term cost-effectiveness analysis of open and endovascular repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Emergency endovascular repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) may have lower operative mortality rates than open surgical repair. Concerns remain that the early survival benefit after EVAR for rAAA may be offset by late reinterventions. The aim of this study was to compare reintervention rates and cost-effectiveness of EVAR and open repair for rAAA. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of patients with rAAA undergoing EVAR or open repair over 6 years. A health economic model developed for the cost-effectiveness of elective EVAR was used in the emergency setting. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (mean age 77·9 years) underwent EVAR and 85 (mean age 75·9 years) had open repair of rAAA. Median follow-up was 42 and 39 months respectively. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality rates after EVAR and open repair (18 and 26 per cent respectively; P = 0·243). Reintervention rates were also similar (32 and 31 per cent; P = 0·701). The mean cost per patient was €26,725 for EVAR and €30,297 for open repair, and the cost per life-year gained was €7906 and €9933 respectively (P = 0·561). Open repair had greater initial costs: longer procedural times (217 versus 178·5 min; P < 0·001) and intensive care stay (5·0 versus 1·0 days; P = 0·015). Conversely, EVAR had greater reintervention (€156,939 versus €35,335; P = 0·001) and surveillance (P < 0·001) costs. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in reintervention rates after EVAR or open repair for rAAA. EVAR was as cost-effective at mid-term follow-up. The increased procedural costs of open repair are not outweighed by greater surveillance and reintervention costs after EVAR.

Survival following ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm before and during the IMPROVE Trial: a single-centre series.

OBJECTIVES: The first large-scale randomised trial (Immediate Management of the Patient with Rupture: Open Versus Endovascular repair [IMPROVE]) for endovascular repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rEVAR) has recently finished recruiting patients. The aim of this study was to examine the impact on survival after rEVAR when the IMPROVE protocol was initiated in a high volume abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) centre previously performing rEVAR. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-nine patients requiring emergency infrarenal AAA repair from January 2006 to April 2013 were included. Eighty-four patients were treated before (38 rEVAR, 46 open) and 85 (31 rEVAR, 54 open) were treated during the trial period. A retrospective analysis was performed. RESULTS: Before the trial, there was a significant survival benefit for rEVAR over open repair (90-day mortality 13% vs. 30%, p = .04, difference remained significant up to 2 years postoperatively). This survival benefit was lost after starting randomisation (90-day mortality 35% vs. 33%, p = .93). There was an increase in overall 30-day mortality from 15% to 31% (p = .02), while there was no change for open repair (p = .438). There was a significant decrease in general anaesthetic use (p = .002) for patients treated during the trial. Randomised patients had shorter hospital and intensive treatment unit stays (p = .006 and p = .03 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The change in survival seen during the IMROVE trial highlights the need for randomised rather than cohort data to eliminate selection bias. These results from a single centre reinforce those recently reported in IMPROVE.