Observational studyMedicine2018
Comparative effectiveness of open surgery versus endovascular repair for hemodynamically stable and unstable ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm.
Observational study in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical Practice Guidelines of the Korean Society for Vascular Surgery for the Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms: Focused on 18 Key Clinical Questions.Vascular specialist international · 2026Article
- Bioinformatics Analysis Reveals the Potential Diagnostic Biomarkers for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several observational studies and randomized trials have compared open surgery (OS) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). However, none of these studies addressed optimal management of hemodynamically (hd) unstable patients. Our objective was to compare perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing OS vs EVAR for hd-stable and hd-unstable rAAAs.This retrospective study was conducted in West China Hospital from January 2005 to December 2015. Unstable patients were defined as those who have at least 1 of the following: preoperative shock, preoperative transfusion >4 units, preoperative intubation, cardiac arrest, or unconsciousness. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.Of the 102 patients, 70.6% underwent OS and 29.4% EVAR. About 46.1% were unstable, and for these patients, OS was performed in 70.2% and EVAR in 29.8%. The 30-day mortality was 23.6% (OS, 25.6%; EVAR, 18.8%; P = .585) for hd-stable patients and was 42.6% (OS, 45.5%; EVAR, 35.7%; P = .537) for hd-unstable patients. Patients with OS had longer operative time and more transfusion. Amongst hd-stable patients, OS subgroup had a higher rate of pneumonia (33.3% vs 6.3%, P = .045), longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay (43.2 vs 15.2 hours, P = .02), and length of stay (11.6 vs 8.6 days, P = .041). Among hd-unstable patients, OS subgroup had a longer ICU stay (134.3 vs 63.8 hours, P = .047). Hospitalization costs of OS group were significantly lower than those of EVAR group, regardless of hemodynamic stability.Approximately one-third of patients with rAAA were treated by EVAR at our institution. EVAR may be the preferred approach for anatomically suitable rAAAs. However, patients treated by EVAR had a similar mortality compared with those treated by OS. In addition, OS is not an independent factor for a higher 30-day mortality, and the costs of OS were much cheaper than those of EVAR. Therefore, OS is difficult to replace, especially in developing countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.