Abstract

Context: If the diameter of an aneurysm increases by more than 6 cm, the risk of aortic rupture increases by 50 within 10 years. Therefore, rupture of aneurysm, which is usually asymptomatic, can lead to severe complications and increase the risk of mortality. The current study aimed to systematically review studies comparing the cost-effective endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) and open surgical repair (OSR) as the primary treatment options for patients with ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs). Methods: An electronic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Science Direct, Scopus, and other scientific economic databases. Relevant articles were searched from 1999 to 2020 using keywords, such as "abdominal aortic aneurysm", "endovascular", "open surgery", "rupture", "economic evaluation", and "cost-effectiveness". The quality of articles was assessed using the Quality of Health Economic studies (QHES) checklist; finally, five articles were included in this review. Results: The results of the QHES checklist showed that most studies had a good quality. A third-party payer's perspective was the dominant perspective in all selected studies, comparing EVAR with OSR. All studies considered the direct medical costs and did not disclose any discount rates, except for one study, reporting a 3.5 discount rate. Almost all included studies found EVAR to be a costeffective intervention; only one study concluded that EVAR, with a cost-effectiveness ratio of 424,542, was not the best treatment option. Conclusion: In patients with ruptured AAAs, the EVAR intervention improved the quality of life, decreased the mortality rate, and shortened the hospital stay as compared to OSR.