Quality-adjusted life year comparison at medium term follow-up of endovascular versus open surgical repair for abdominal aortic aneurysm in young patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the quality of life and cost effectiveness between endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in young patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). DESIGN: This was a single-center, observational, and retrospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with AAA, who were <70 years old and underwent EVAR or OSR between January 2012 and October 2016. Only patients with aortic morphology that was suitable for EVAR were enrolled. Data on the complication rates, medical expenses, and expected quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were collected, and the cost per QALY at three years was compared. RESULTS: Among 90 patients with aortic morphology who were eligible for EVAR, 37 and 53 patients underwent EVAR and OSR, respectively. No significant differences were observed in perioperative cardiovascular events and death between the two groups. However, during the follow-up period, patients undergoing OSR showed a significantly lower complication rate (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.11; P = .021). From the three-year cost-effectiveness analysis, the total sum of costs was significantly lower in the OSR group (P < .001) than that in the EVAR group, and the number of QALYs was superior in the OSR group (P = .013). The cost per QALY at three years was significantly lower in the OSR group than that in the EVAR group (mean: $4038 vs. $10 137; respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: OSR had lower complication rates and better cost-effectiveness than EVAR Among young patients with feasible aortic anatomy.

Early and Late Outcomes of Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair versus Open Surgical Repair of an Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Single-Center Study.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to compare the treatment outcomes and cost of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) in patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) at a single center. METHODS: Patients treated for an AAA at a single center between January 2007 and December 2012 were retrospectively identified and classified based on the treatment they received (EVAR or OSR). Patient demographics and in-hospital costs were recorded. Long-term survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: During the study period, 401 patients with AAA were treated at Asan Medical Center. Among these cases, 226 were treated with EVAR (56%) and 175 received OSR (44%). The mean age of the EVAR group was higher than that of the OSR group (71.25 ± 7.026 vs. 61.26 ± 8.175, P < 0.001). The need for intraoperative transfusion and total length of in-hospital stay were significantly lower in the EVAR group (P < 0.001). The OSR group showed significantly reduced rates of overall mortality (P = 0.003), overall reintervention (P = 0.001), and long-term survival (63.98 ± 1.86 vs. 99.54 ± 3.17, P < 0.001). The OSR group was charged significantly less than the EVAR group ($12,879.21 USD vs. $18,057.78 USD, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: EVAR has advantages over OSR in terms of short-term mortality, in-hospital length of stay, and rates of perioperative transfusion. However, OSR is associated with better long-term survival, lower reintervention rates, and lower costs.