抄録
Background:To validate the criteria for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) or open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) at Nagoya University Hospital, the results of both treatments were retrospectively compared.Methods and Results:Patient selection for EVAR was primarily based on suitable anatomy, minimum age 75 years, and significant comorbidity. From June 2007 to April 2014, 426 patients were treated via EVAR (EVAR group) and 346 patients were treated with open surgery (OS group). The mortality rates of the EVAR and OS groups were not significantly different (0.2% vs. 1.1%; P=0.33). Patient age, operation time, amount of bleeding, and duration of hospital stay were significantly lower in the EVAR group compared with the OS group. The incidence of comorbidity was higher in the EVAR group compared with the OS group. The incidence of early postoperative complications was significantly higher in the OS group, whereas the incidence of late complications for both groups was similar. The cumulative aneurysm-related survival rates were similar (98.9% vs. 98.5%; P=0.767). The cumulative survival rates and reintervention-free rates at 5 years were lower for the EVAR group (76% vs. 89%, P=0.019; 81% vs. 89%, P=0.046).Conclusions:Patient selection practices and criteria for EVAR and open repair at Nagoya University Hospital are generally acceptable.
