Endovascular versus open repair of XXXX .

@entity1 @entity11557 @entity439 @entity1755
INTRODUCTION: @entity439 repair (EVAR) is a comparatively less invasive technique than open repair (OR). Debate remains with regard to the benefit of EVAR for @entity1 with @entity1755 ( @entity1755 ). We sought to evaluate and report outcomes of EVAR for @entity1755 in an Irish tertiary vascular referral centre. METHODS: @entity1 undergoing emergency surgery for ruptured or symptomatic @entity11557 were identified from theatre logbooks and HIPE database. Retrospective chart review was undertaken. Data were exported to IBM SPSS version 21 for statistical analysis with p  <  0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: A total of 41 @entity1 underwent surgery for @entity1755 . The mean age was 74 years old with a range from 55 to 89 years. The majority (n  =  25, 61%) were baseline American Society of Anaesthesiology (ASA) grade 3-4. Of these 56% underwent EVAR with the remaining 44% repaired open. Mortality rate in those undergoing emergency EVAR was 34.8%, compared with 38.9% in those undergoing open surgery. This difference was not statistically significant. The mean overall length of stay was 13 days. With regard to prognostic indicators of @entity1 outcome, increasing @entity1 age was noted to be significantly associated with increased mortality (p  =  0.013), as was increased ASA score at time of surgery (p  =  0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Mortality rates in those undergoing EVAR for @entity1755 are comparable with those undergoing open repair. Increasing age and ASA score are significant predictors of mortality in @entity1 with @entity1755 undergoing intervention.
