Abstract
PURPOSE: Although endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) has been shown to be superior to open surgical repair (OSR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment, no large-scale studies in the Korean population have compared outcomes and costs. METHODS: The National Health Insurance Service database in Korea was screened to identify AAA patients treated with EVAR or OSR from 2008 to 2019. Perioperative, early postoperative, and long-term survival were compared, as were reinterventions and complications. Patients were followed-up through 2020. RESULTS: Of the 13,631 patients identified, 2,935 underwent OSR and 10,696 underwent EVAR. Perioperative mortality rate was lower in the EVAR group (4.2% vs. 8.0%, P < 0.001) even after excluding patients with ruptured AAA (2.7% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.003). However, long-term mortality rate per 100 person-years was significantly higher in the EVAR than in the OSR group (9.0 vs. 6.4, P < 0.001), and all-cause mortality was lower in the OSR group (hazard ratio, 0.9; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.97, P = 0.008). EVAR had a higher AAA-related reintervention rate per 100 person-years (1.75 vs. 0.52), and AAA-related reintervention costs were almost 10-fold higher with EVAR (US dollar [USD] 6,153,463) than with OSR (USD 624,216). CONCLUSION: While EVAR may have short-term advantages, OSR may provide better long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness for AAA treatment in the Korean population, under the medical expense system in Korea.