Background. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair has become an alternative to open surgical repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm since the early 1990s. The conventional method remains the gold standard in the treatment of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm (AAA); however, a large percentage of patients do not qualify for this treatment due to the high risk of perioperational death and complications. Objectives. The objective of this work was to compare AAA surgeries performed by both classical and endovascular methods in years 2002-2011. Material and Methods. Medical documentation of elective AAA patients undergoing surgical treatment was retrospectively analyzed on the basis of archive-and computer database data. The analysis included the patients' demographics, internal disease burden, as well as causes of deaths and complications within 30 days after the procedure and 1 year follow-up. Results. Thirty-day and 1-year mortality rates in patients treated in the elective setting were 1.5% and 8.7% for endovascular method and 4.0% and 15.7% for the open method. The comparison of mortality rates in 115 high-risk patients undergoing elective OR treatment with 275 high-risk treatment patients undergoing EVAR surgery (7.8% vs. 1.5%, 8.7% vs. 15.7%, p < .01) showed that the endovascular method significantly reduced the mortality in the latter group. Conclusions. Endovascular treatment is an attractive option in AAA; especially in heavily burdened patients, because it definitely reduces mortality. EVAR was found to be advantageous over OR in case of high-risk patients (Adv Clin Exp Med 2015, 24, 3, 475-479).

No abstract