Catheter-based endovascular damage-control (CDET): current status and future directions

Endovascular Therapy of Vascular Trauma—Current Options and Review of the Literature

Objective:

To review the current use of endovascular techniques in trauma.

Summary Background Data:

Multiple studies have demonstrated that, despite current guidelines, endovascular therapies are used in instances of arterial trauma.

Methods:

The existing literature concerning arterial trauma was reviewed. Studies reviewed included case reports, single-center case series, large database studies, official industry publications and instructions for use, and society guidelines.

Results:

Endovascular therapies are used in arterial trauma in all systems. The use of thoracic endografts in blunt thoracic aortic trauma is accepted and endorsed by society guidelines. The use of endovascular therapies in other anatomic locations is largely limited to single-center studies. Advantages potentially include less morbidity due to smaller incisions as well as shorter operating room times. Many report using endovascular therapies even with hard signs of injury. Long-term results are limited by a lack of long-term follow-up but, in general, suggest that these techniques produce acceptable outcomes. The adoption of these techniques may be limited by resource and surgeon availability.

Conclusions:

The use of endovascular therapies in trauma has gained acceptance despite not yet having a place in official guidelines.

Impact of emergency physicians competent in severe trauma management, surgical techniques, and interventional radiology on trauma management

Aim

Despite recent advancements in trauma management following introduction of interventional radiology (IVR) and damage-control strategies, challenges remain regarding optimal use of resources for severe trauma.

Methods

In October 2014, we implemented a trauma management system comprising emergency physicians competent in severe trauma management, surgical techniques, and IVR. To evaluate this system, of 5,899 trauma patients admitted to our hospital from January 2011 to January 2018, we selected 107 patients with severe trauma (injury severity score ≥ 16) who presented with persistent hypotension (two or more systolic blood pressure measurements <90 mmHg), regardless of primary resuscitation. Patients were divided according to the date of admission: Conventional (January 2011-September 2014) or Current (October 2014-January 2018). The primary end-point was in-hospital mortality. Secondary end-points included time from arrival to start of surgery/IVR.

Results

There were 59 patients in the Conventional group and 48 in the Current group. Although patients in the Current group were more severely ill compared with those in the Conventional group, mortality in the Current group was significantly lower (Conventional 64.4% versus Current 41.7%, P = 0.019), especially among patients whose first intervention was IVR (Conventional 75.0% versus Current 28.6%, P = 0.001). Time from arrival to initiation of surgery/IVR was shorter in the Current group (Conventional 71.5 [53.8-130.8] min versus Current 41.0 [26.0-58.5] min, P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

This trauma management system based on emergency physicians competent not only in severe trauma management, but also surgical techniques and IVR, could improve outcomes in patients with severe multiple lethal trauma.