Durability of benefits of endovascular versus conventional abdominal aortic aneurysm repair

Jeffrey P. Carpenter, Richard A. Baum, Clyde F. Barker, Michael A. Golden, Omaida C. Velazquez, Mark E. Mitchell, Ronald M. Fairman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

97 Scopus citations


Purpose: Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair is reported to result in less initial patient morbidity and a shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) when compared with conventional AAA repair. We sought to examine the durability of this result during the intermediate follow-up interval. Methods: The records of all admissions for all patients who underwent AAA repair during a 26-month interval were reviewed. Results: Three hundred thirty-seven (337) patients underwent procedures to repair AAAs (163 open and 174 endovascular). Endovascular procedures were performed with a variety of devices (Talent, 108; Ancure, 36; AneuBx, 26; Zenith, 2; and Cordis, 2) and configurations (141 bifurcated and 33 aortomonoiliac). The mean follow-up period was 10.6 months (endovascular repair) and 12.3 months (open repair). LOS did not significantly vary by device (P = .24 to P = .92) or configuration (P = .24). The initial median LOS for procedures was significantly shorter (P = .009) for endovascular repairs (5 days) than for open procedures (8 days). However, the patients who underwent endovascular repair were more likely to be readmitted during the follow-up interval when compared with patients who underwent open procedure. The readmission-free survival rate after AAA repair at 12 months was 95% for patients for open AAA repair versus 71% for patients for endovascular repair (P < .001). If the total hospital days were compared, including the initial and all subsequent AAA-related admissions, there was no significant difference for mean LOS for patients who underwent endovascular versus open AAA procedures (11 days versus 13.6 days; P = .21). The patients for endovascular AAA repair most commonly needed readmission for treatment of endoleak (n = 31), wound infection (n = 12), and graft limb thrombosis (n = 9). Although women had similar LOS to men for endovascular repair (P = .44), they had longer initial LOS for open AAA repair (15 versus 10 days; P = .03). After endovascular repair, women were more likely than men to be readmitted by 12 months (51% versus 71% readmission-free survival rate; P = .03) and they had longer LOS on readmission (13.2 versus 5.2 days; P = .006). No gender differences were identified for patients after open AAA repair regarding readmission-free survival rate (P = .09) or LOS on readmission (P = .98). Conclusion: Although initial LOS was shorter for the patients who underwent endovascular as compared with conventional AAA repair, this advantage was lost during the follow-up interval because of frequent readmission for the treatment of procedure-related complications, chiefly endoleak. These readmissions frequently involved the performance of additional invasive procedures. Gender differences existed regarding LOS and the likelihood of complications after open and endovascular AAA repair.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)222-228
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of vascular surgery
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 2002
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine


Dive into the research topics of 'Durability of benefits of endovascular versus conventional abdominal aortic aneurysm repair'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this