Endovascular aneurysm repair is not inferior to open repair in patients with a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm. This supports the use of EVAR in suitable patients and OR as a reasonable alternative.

Concerning discrimination and calibration, the updated GAS most accurately predicted death after intervention for a RAAA. However, the updated GAS did not identify patients with a ≥95% predicted death rate, and therefore cannot reliably support the decision to withhold intervention.

The incidence of AKI defined according to the RIFLE criteria (74%) was greater than defined using the SVS/ISCVS reporting standards (48%) and patients categorized as 'Failure' using the RIFLE criteria had a greater risk of dying than patients without AKI. These results indicate that the problem of AKI is much bigger than previously anticipated and that minimizing injury to the kidney could be an important focus of future research on reducing the death rate after RAAA repair.

Five years after the primary intervention, endovascular and open repair for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm resulted in similar re-intervention and survival rates. However, in patients who survived their hospital stay the re-intervention rate was higher for EVAR than for OR.

In AAA patients eligible for endovascular and open repair, the predictions of in-hospital death by the Medicare, VGNW, and BAR models were sufficiently accurate. Therefore, these models can be used to support deciding between endovascular and open repair.