Objective: Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) is a critical condition with a high mortality rate. Over the years, endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) has evolved as a viable treatment option in addition to open repair (OR). The primary objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of EVAR and OR for the treatment of rAAA based on a comprehensive analysis of our single-centre 30-year experience. Methods: Patients treated for rAAA at the Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany from 1 January 1993 to 31 December 2022 were included. Relevant information was retrieved from archived medical records. Patient survival and surgery-related complications were analysed. Results: None of the patient-specific markers, emergency department-associated parameters, and co-morbidities were associated with patient survival. The 30-day and in-hospital mortality was higher in the OR group vs. in the EVAR group (50% vs. 8.7% and 57.1% vs. 13%, respectively). OR was associated with more frequent occurrence of more severe complications when compared to EVAR. Overall patient survival was 56 ± 5% at 12 months post-surgery (52 ± 6% for OR vs. 73 ± 11% for EVAR, respectively) (p < 0.05). Patients ≥70 years of age showed poorer survival in the OR group, with a 12-month survival of 42 ± 7% vs. 70 ± 10% for patients <70 years of age (p < 0.05). In the EVAR group, this age-related survival advantage was not found (12-month survival: ≥70 years: 67 ± 14%, <70 years: 86 ± 13%). Gender-specific survival was similar regardless of the applied method of care. Conclusion: OR was associated with more severe complications in our study. EVAR initially outperformed OR for rAAA regarding patient survival while re-interventions following EVAR negatively affect survival in the long-term. Elderly patients should be treated with EVAR. Gender does not seem to have a significant impact on survival.

Background: For (thoracic) endovascular aortic repair ((T)EVAR) procedures, both mobile (standard operating room (SOR)) and fixed C-arm (hybrid operating room (HOR)) systems are available. This study evaluated differences in key procedural parameters, and procedural success for (T)EVAR in the SOR versus the HOR. Methods: All patients who underwent standard elective (T)EVAR at the Clinic for Vascular and Endovascular Surgery at the University Hospital Duesseldorf, Germany, between 1 January 2012 and 1 January 2019 were included. Data were retrieved from archived medical records. Endpoints were analyzed for SOR versus HOR during (T)EVAR. Results: A total of 93 patients, including 50 EVAR (SOR (n = 20); HOR (n = 30)) and 43 TEVAR (SOR (n = 22); HOR (n= 21)) were included. The dose area product (DAP) for EVAR and TEVAR was lower in the SOR than in the HOR (EVAR, SOR: 1635 ± 1088 cGy·cm²; EVAR, HOR: 7819 ± 8928 cGy·cm²; TEVAR, SOR: 8963 ± 34,458 cGy·cm²; TEVAR, HOR: 14,591 ± 11,584 cGy·cm² (p < 0.05)). Procedural fluoroscopy time was shorter in the SOR than in the HOR for EVAR and TEVAR (EVAR, SOR: 7 ± 4 min; EVAR, HOR: 18.8 ± 11.3 min; TEVAR, SOR: 6.6 ± 9.6 min; TEVAR, HOR: 13.9 ± 11.8 min (p < 0.05)). Higher volumes of contrast agent were applied during EVAR and TEVAR in the SOR than in the HOR (EVAR, SOR: 57.5 ± 20 mL; EVAR: HOR: 33.3 ± 5 mL (p < 0.05); TEVAR; SOR: 71.5 ± 53.4 mL, TEVAR, HOR: 48.2 ± 27.5 mL (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusion: The use of a fixed C-arm angiography system in the HOR results in higher radiation exposure and longer fluoroscopy times but lower contrast agent volumes when compared with mobile C-arm systems in the SOR. Because stochastic radiation sequelae are more likely to be tolerated in an older patient population and, in addition, there is a higher incidence of CKD in this patient population, allocation of patients to the HOR for standard (T)EVAR seems particularly advisable based on our results.