Comparison of clinical curative effect between open surgery and endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm in China.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical curative effects of open surgery (OS) or endovascular repair (EVAR) for patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) in China.

DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of both English and Chinese literatures involving case studies on retrograde OS or EVAR of AAA in China from January 1976 to December 2010.

STUDY SELECTION: According to the inclusion criteria, 76 articles were finally analyzed to compare patient characteristics, clinical success, complications, and prognosis.

RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 2862 patients with 1757 undergoing OS (OS group) and 1105 undergoing EVAR (EVAR group). There was no significant difference in the success rate of the procedures. Operative time, length of ICU stay, fasting time, duration of total postoperative stay, blood loss, and blood transfusion requirements during the procedure were significantly lower in the EVAR group. A 30-day follow up revealed more cardiac, renal, pulmonary, and visceral complications in the OS group (P < 0.01). Low-limb ischemia, however, was more common in the EVAR group (P < 0.05). The 30-day mortality rate, including aorta-related and non-aorta related mortality, was significantly lower in the EVAR group (P < 0.01). In the follow-up period, there were more patients with occlusions of artificial vessel and late endoleak in the EVAR group (P < 0.01). The overall late mortality rate was higher in the OS group (P < 0.01), especially non-aorta-related late mortality and mortality during the fourth to the sixth year (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS: EVAR was safer and less invasive for AAA patients. Patients suffered fewer complications and recovered sooner. However, complications such as artificial vessel occlusion, low-limb ischemia, and endoleak were common in EVAR. Clinicians should carry out further research to solve these complications and improve the efficacy of EVAR.