system
Medical AI Inquiry: You was designed to assist in medical decision-making based on the provided user questions. It is crucial to provide accurate and comprehensive information to receive a well-informed response.  Labels: BACKGROUND, METHODS, RESULTS. Meshes: Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal, Aortic Rupture, Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation, Cost Savings, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Databases, Factual, Endovascular Procedures, Female, Hospital Costs, Humans, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Length of Stay, Logistic Models, Male, Medicare, Multivariate Analysis, Odds Ratio, Patient Readmission, Postoperative Complications, Proportional Hazards Models, Risk Assessment, Risk Factors, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, United States.
user
Does endovascular Repair for Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms have Improved Outcomes Compared to Open Surgical Repair? Context: Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) remains a critical diagnosis, and research is needed to address outcomes following surgical repair. The purpose of this study was to compare nationwide outcomes for patients who received either endovascular repair (EVAR) or open surgical repair (OSAR) for rAAA. The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file from 2005 to 2009 was used to identify patients diagnosed with rAAA and treated with either EVAR or OSAR. Those patients with both procedures were excluded. Primary outcomes included mortality, postoperative complications, and readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included hospital resource utilization and length of stay (LOS). A total of 8480 patients with rAAA who underwent EVAR (n = 1939) or OSAR (n = 6541) were identified. On multivariate regression, the likelihood of dying in the hospital after OSAR compared to EVAR was significantly greater (odds ratio [OR] = 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.74-2.18). There was significantly greater frequency of postoperative complications after OSAR compared to EVAR (OR = 2.1, 95%CI = 1.86-2.37, P < .0001). Freedom from readmission after OSAR was significantly greater than that after EVAR. Total hospital cost for all services after EVAR was greater than that after OSAR (US$100 875 vs US$89 035; P < .0001), but intensive care unit (ICU) cost for EVAR was significantly less than that for OSAR (US$5516 vs US$8600; P < .0001). Total hospital and ICU LOS were shorter in EVAR compared to OSAR (P < .0001 for both).
assistant
EVAR for rAAA has shown mortality benefits over OSAR as well as reduced ICU and total LOS. This data suggest EVAR is associated with a greater survival benefit, fewer postoperative complications, and may help improve hospital resource utilization. Final Decision: yes