LAUSR

PURPOSE To evaluate the short-term outcome of totally percutaneous endovascular aortic repair (pEVAR) of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) compared with femoral cut-down endovascular aortic repair (cEVAR). MATERIALS AND METHODS The medical records of patients with ruptured AAAs that underwent EVAR between March 2010 and April 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic information, preoperative vital signs, preoperative laboratory data, method of anesthesia, procedure duration, aneurysm morphology, brand of device used, length of hospital stay, access complications, and short-term outcomes were recorded. Univariate as well as multivariate logistic regression was used to identify predictors of 30-day mortality. RESULTS Among 77 patients with ruptured AAAs, 17 (22.1%) received cEVAR and 60 (77.9%) received pEVAR. Significant differences in the procedure time (P = 0.004), method of anesthesia (P = 0.040), and 30-day mortality (P = 0.037) were detected between the cEVAR and pEVAR groups. Local anesthesia plus intravenous general anesthesia (odds ratio = 0.141, P = 0.018) was an independent factor associated with 30-day mortality and local anesthesia was better than general anesthesia for 24-h mortality (P = 0.001) and 30-day mortality (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION In patients with ruptured AAAs, pEVAR procedures took less time than cEVAR procedures, but the length of hospital stay did not differ significantly. The 30-day mortality rate was lower with pEVAR than with cEVAR. Local anesthesia may be the key factor in EVAR to improved technical and clinical success.