Vascular procedures in general, and specifically abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, are associated with worse outcomes in female patients. However, how female gender influences outcomes in the setting of aneurysm-rupture remains unclear and may be even more pronounced when compared to elective operations. In this report, the authors aim to review the literature regarding ruptured AAArepair in women. Using the traditional threshold for AAAof 30 mm of maximum diameter, the prevalence in women is lesser than in men. However, the true prevalence may be underestimated due to gender discrepancies in normal aortic diameter. For females, aneurysmal disease seems to manifest later, have more associated comorbidities, and rupture occurs at smaller aortic diameters. This has obvious implications for management. There is still no consensus over the optimal treatment for ruptured AAAin women. They are less frequently treated by endovascular aneurysm repair, possibly due to anatomical restrains. When feasible, endovascular repair shows better outcomes, at least in the short-Term, and there is new evidence suggesting a lasting benefit as well. For open repair the results are consensually worse when compared to male counterparts. Finally, despite benefitting of apparently similar healthcare, women have a lower relative survival after rAAA repair when compared to men. Further investiga-Tion to determine the reasons of these discrepancies is warranted.

Additional Metadata
Keywords Abdominal, Aortic aneurysm, Rupture, Treatment outcome, Women
Persistent URL,
Journal The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery: a journal on cardiac, vascular and thoracic surgery
Rights no subscription
Soares Ferreira, R. (Rita), Gomesoliveira, N. (Nelson), Oliveira-Pinto, J. (José), van Rijn, M.J.E, ten Raa, S, Verhagen, H.J.M, & Bastosgonçalves, F. (Frederico). (2018). Review on management and outcomes of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in women. The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery: a journal on cardiac, vascular and thoracic surgery (Vol. 59, pp. 195–200). doi:10.23736/S0021-9509.18.10380-6