Several observational studies and randomized trials have compared open surgery (OS) and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA). However, none of these studies addressed optimal management of hemodynamically (hd) unstable patients. Our objective was to compare perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing OS vs EVAR for hd-stable and hd-unstable rAAAs.This retrospective study was conducted in West China Hospital from January 2005 to December 2015. Unstable patients were defined as those who have at least 1 of the following: preoperative shock, preoperative transfusion >4 units, preoperative intubation, cardiac arrest, or unconsciousness. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.Of the 102 patients, 70.6% underwent OS and 29.4% EVAR. About 46.1% were unstable, and for these patients, OS was performed in 70.2% and EVAR in 29.8%. The 30-day mortality was 23.6% (OS, 25.6%; EVAR, 18.8%; P = .585) for hd-stable patients and was 42.6% (OS, 45.5%; EVAR, 35.7%; P = .537) for hd-unstable patients. Patients with OS had longer operative time and more transfusion. Amongst hd-stable patients, OS subgroup had a higher rate of pneumonia (33.3% vs 6.3%, P = .045), longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay (43.2 vs 15.2 hours, P = .02), and length of stay (11.6 vs 8.6 days, P = .041). Among hd-unstable patients, OS subgroup had a longer ICU stay (134.3 vs 63.8 hours, P = .047). Hospitalization costs of OS group were significantly lower than those of EVAR group, regardless of hemodynamic stability.Approximately one-third of patients with rAAA were treated by EVAR at our institution. EVAR may be the preferred approach for anatomically suitable rAAAs. However, patients treated by EVAR had a similar mortality compared with those treated by OS. In addition, OS is not an independent factor for a higher 30-day mortality, and the costs of OS were much cheaper than those of EVAR. Therefore, OS is difficult to replace, especially in developing countries.