Endovascular repair versus open repair in the treatment of ruptured aortic aneurysms. A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Rupture of abdominal aortic aneurysm remains a fatal event in up to 65% of cases and emergency open surgery (ruptured open aneurysm repair or rOAR) has a great intraoperative mortality of about 30-50%. The introduction of endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair or rEVAR) has rapidly challenged the conventional approach to this catastrophic event. The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the outcomes of open surgical repair and endovascular interventions. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A literature search was performed using Medline, Scopus, and Science Direct from August 2010 to March 2017 using keywords identified and agreed by the authors. Randomized trials, cohort studies, and case-report series were contemplated to give a breadth of clinical data. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Ninety-three studies were included in the final analysis. Thirty-five (50.7%) of the listed studies evaluating the within 30 days mortality rates deposed in favor of rEVAR, while the others (comprising all four included RCTs) failed detecting any difference. Late mortality rates were found to be lower in rEVAR group in seven on twenty-seven studies (25.9%), while one (3.7%) reported higher mortality rates following rEVAR performed before 2005, one found lower incidence of mortality at 6 months in the endovascular group but higher rates in the same population at 8 years of follow-up, and the remaining (66.7%) (including all three RCTs) failed finding any benefit of rEVAR on rOAR. A lower incidence of complications was reported by thirteen groups (46.4%), while other thirteen studies did not find any difference between rEVAR and rOAR. Each of these two conclusions was corroborated by one RCTs. Other two studies (7.2%) found higher rates of tracheostomies, myocardial infarction, and acute tubular necrosis or respiratory, urinary complications, and acute renal failure respectively in rOAR group. The majority of studies (59.0%, 72.7%, and 89.3%, respectively) and all RCTs found significantly lower rates of length of hospitalization, intensive care unit transfer, and blood loss with or without transfusion need in rEVAR group. The large majority of the studies did not specified neither the type nor the brands of employed stent grafts. CONCLUSIONS: The bulk of evidence regarding the comparison between endovascular and open surgery approach to RAAA points to: 1) non-inferiority of rEVAR in terms of early (within 30 days) and late mortality as well as rate of complications and length of hospitalization, with trends of better outcomes associated to the endovascular approach; 2) significantly better outcomes in terms of intensive care unit transfer and blood loss with or without transfusion need in the rEVAR group. These conclusions reflect the results of the available RCTs included in the present review. Thus rEVAR can be considered a safe method in treating RAAA and we suggest that it should be preferred when technically feasible. However, more RCTs are needed in order to give strength of these evidences, bring to definite clinical recommendations regarding this subject, and assess the superiority (if present) of one or more brands of stent grafts over the others.