PURPOSE: Endovascular @entity1028 ( @entity1028 ) repair is reported to result in less initial @entity1 morbidity and a shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) when compared with conventional @entity1028 repair. We sought to examine the durability of this result during the intermediate follow-up interval. METHODS: The records of all admissions for all @entity1 who underwent @entity1028 repair during a 26-month interval were reviewed. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-seven (337) @entity1 underwent procedures to repair AAAs (163 open and 174 endovascular). Endovascular procedures were performed with a variety of devices (Talent, 108; Ancure, 36; AneuRx, 26; Zenith, 2; and Cordis, 2) and configurations (141 bifurcated and 33 aortomonoiliac). The mean follow-up period was 10.6 months (endovascular repair) and 12.3 months (open repair). LOS did not significantly vary by device (P =.24 to P =.92) or configuration (P =.24). The initial median LOS for procedures was significantly shorter (P =.009) for endovascular repairs (5 days) than for open procedures (8 days). However, the @entity1 who underwent endovascular repair were more likely to be readmitted during the follow-up interval when compared with @entity1 who underwent open procedure. The readmission-free survival rate after @entity1028 repair at 12 months was 95% for @entity1 for open @entity1028 repair versus 71% for @entity1 for endovascular repair (P <.001). If the total hospital days were compared, including the initial and all subsequent @entity1028 -related admissions, there was no significant difference for mean LOS for @entity1 who underwent endovascular versus open @entity1028 procedures (11 days versus 13.6 days; P =.21). The @entity1 for @entity1028 repair most commonly needed readmission for treatment of @entity1070 (n = 31), wound @entity281 (n = 12), and graft limb @entity715 (n = 9). Although @entity1 had similar LOS to @entity1 for endovascular repair (P =.44), they had longer initial LOS for open @entity1028 repair (15 versus 10 days; P =.03). After endovascular repair, @entity1 were more likely than @entity1 to be readmitted by 12 months (51% versus 71% readmission-free survival rate; P =.03) and they had longer LOS on readmission (13.2 versus 5.2 days; P =.006). No gender differences were identified for @entity1 after open @entity1028 repair regarding readmission-free survival rate (P =.09) or LOS on readmission (P =.98). CONCLUSION: Although initial LOS was shorter for the @entity1 who underwent endovascular as compared with conventional @entity1028 repair, this advantage was lost during the follow-up interval because of frequent readmission for the treatment of procedure-related complications, @entity1070 . These readmissions frequently involved the performance of additional invasive procedures. Gender differences existed regarding LOS and the likelihood of complications after open and @entity1028 repair.

Durability of benefits of endovascular versus conventional XXXX repair.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['women', 'patients', 'patient', 'men'] @entity1070 :: ('MESH:D057867', 'Disease') :: ['endoleak', 'chiefly endoleak'] @entity281 :: ('MESH:D007239', 'Disease') :: ['infection'] @entity715 :: ('MESH:D013927', 'Disease') :: ['thrombosis'] @entity1028 :: ('MESH:D017544', 'Disease') :: ['endovascular AAA', 'abdominal aortic aneurysm', 'AAA']
@entity1028 :: (MESH:D017544,Disease) :: ['abdominal aortic aneurysm']
