Use of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair in Patients with Concomitant Blunt Aortic and Traumatic Brain Injury

The Characteristics and Results of Endovascular Devices in Trauma (CREDiT) study: Multi-institutional results

INTRODUCTION

Endovascular techniques are increasingly used to repair major traumatic vascular injuries, but most endovascular implants are not designed/approved for trauma-specific indications. No inventory guidelines exist for the devices used in these procedures. We aimed to describe the use and characteristics of endovascular implants used for repair of vascular injuries to allow for better inventory management.

METHODS

This CREDiT study is a six-year retrospective cohort analysis of endovascular procedures performed for repair of traumatic arterial injuries at five participating US trauma centers. For each treated vessel, procedural and device details were recorded and outcomes assessed with the aim of defining the range of implants and sizes used for these interventions.

RESULTS

A total of 94 cases were identified; 58 (61%) were descending thoracic aorta, 14 (15%) axillosubclavian, 5 carotid, 4 abdominal aortic, 4 common iliac, 7 femoropopliteal, and 1 renal. Vascular surgeons performed 54% of cases, trauma surgeons 17%, IR/CT Surgery 29%. Systemic heparin was administered in 68% and procedures were performed a median of 9 h after arrival (IQR 3-24 h). Primary arterial access was femoral in 93% of cases, 49% were bilateral. Brachial/radial access was used primarily in 6 cases, and secondary to femoral in 9. The most common implant was self-expanding stent graft; 18% used >1 stent. Implants ranged in diameter and length based on vessel size. Five of 94 implants underwent reintervention (1 open surgery) at a median of 4d postop (range 2-60d). Two occlusions and 1 stenosis were present at follow-up at a median of 1 month (range 0-72 m).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular reconstruction of injured arteries requires a broad range of implant types, diameters, and lengths which should be readily available in trauma centers. Stent occlusions/stenoses are rare and can typically be managed by endovascular means.

Longer-term rates of survival and reintervention after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt aortic injury: a retrospective population-based cohort study from Ontario, Canada

Objectives

Blunt aortic injury (BAI) is associated with a high rate of mortality. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as the preferred treatment option for patients with BAI. In this study, we compare the longer-term outcomes of patients receiving TEVAR with other treatment options for BAI.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative health data on patients with BAI in Ontario, Canada between 2009 and 2020. Patients with BAI and who survived at least 24 hours after hospital admission were identified using diagnostic codes. We classified patients as having received TEVAR, open surgical, hybrid repair, or medical management as their initial treatment approach based on procedure codes. The primary outcome was survival to maximum follow-up. Secondary outcomes included aorta-related mortality or aortic reintervention. Cox's proportional hazards models were used to estimate the effect of TEVAR on survival.

Results

427 patients with BAI were followed for a median of 3 years (IQR: 1-6 years), with 348 patients (81.5%) surviving. Survival to maximum follow-up did not differ between treatment groups: TEVAR: 79%, surgical repair: 63.6%, hybrid repair: 85.7%, medical management: 83.3% (p=0.10). In adjusted analyses, TEVAR was not associated with improved survival compared with surgical repair (HR: 0.6, 95% CI: 0.3 to 1.6), hybrid repair (HR: 1.4, 95% CI: 0.5 to 3.6), or medical management (HR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.8 to 2.6). Aortic reinterventions were required in only 2.6% of surviving patients but were significantly more common in the TEVAR group (p<0.01).

Conclusions

The longer-term survival from BAI appears highly favorable with low rates of reintervention and death in the years after injury, regardless of the initial treatment approach.

Level of evidence

IV, Therapeutic study.

Delayed Endovascular Repair With Procedural Anticoagulation: A Safe Strategy for Blunt Aortic Injury

BACKGROUND

Blunt aortic injury (BAI) and traumatic brain injury (TBI) are the leading causes of death after blunt trauma. The purposes of this study were to identify predictors of mortality for BAI and to examine the impact of procedural heparinization during thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) on neurologic outcomes in patients with BAI/TBI.

METHODS

Patients with BAI were identified over an 8 year period. Age, gender, severity of injury and shock, time to TEVAR, morbidity, and mortality were recorded and compared. Multivariable logistic regression (MLR) was performed to determine independent predictors of mortality. Youden's index determined optimal time to TEVAR.

RESULTS

A total of 129 patients were identified. The majority (74%) were male with a median age and injury severity score (ISS) of 40 years and 29, respectively. Of these, 26 (20%) had a concomitant TBI. Patients with BAI/TBI had higher injury burden at presentation (ISS 37 vs. 29, P = 0.002; Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] 6 vs. 15, P < 0.0001), underwent fewer TEVAR procedures (31 vs. 53%, P = 0.039), and suffered increased mortality (39 vs. 16%, P = 0.009). All TEVARs had procedural anticoagulation, including patients with TBI, without change in neurologic function. The optimal time to TEVAR was 14.8 hr. Mortality increased in TEVAR patients before 14.8 hr (8.7 vs. 0%, P = 0.210). MLR identified TEVAR as the only modifiable factor that reduced mortality (odds ratio 0.11; 95% confidence interval 0.03-0.45, P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR use was identified as the only modifiable predictor of reduced mortality in patients with BAI. Delayed TEVAR with the use of procedural heparin provides a safe option regardless of TBI with improved survival and no difference in discharge neurologic function.

Outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair in patients with concomitant blunt thoracic aortic injury and traumatic brain injury from the Aortic Trauma Foundation global registry

BACKGROUND

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) are the top two leading causes of death after blunt force trauma. Patients presenting with concomitant BTAI and TBI pose a specific challenge with respect to management strategy, because the optimal hemodynamic parameters are conflicting between the two pathologies. Early thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is often performed, even for minimal aortic injuries, to allow for the higher blood pressure parameters required for TBI management. However, the optimal timing of TEVAR for the treatment of BTAI in patients with concomitant TBI remains an active matter of controversy.

METHODS

The Aortic Trauma Foundation international prospective multicenter registry was used to identify all patients who had undergone TEVAR for BTAI in the setting of TBI from 2015 to 2020. The primary outcomes included delayed ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, in-hospital mortality, and aortic-related mortality. The outcomes were examined among patients who had undergone TEVAR at emergent (<6 vs ≥6 hours) or urgent (<24 vs ≥24 hours) intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients (median age, 43 years; 79% men; median injury severity score, 41) with BTAI (Society for Vascular Surgery BTAI grade 1, 3%; grade 2, 10%; grade 3, 78%; grade 4, 9%) and concomitant TBI who had undergone TEVAR were identified. Emergent repair was performed for 51 patients (51%). Comparing emergent repair (<6 hours) to urgent repair (≥6 hours), no difference was found in delayed cerebral ischemic events (2.0% vs 4.1%; P = .614), in-hospital mortality (15.7% vs 22.4%; P = .389), or aortic-related mortality (2.0% vs 2.0%; P = .996) and no patient had experienced delayed hemorrhagic stroke. Likewise, repairs conducted in an urgent (<24 hours) setting showed no differences compared with those completed in an emergent (≥24 hours) setting regarding delayed ischemic stroke (2.6% vs 4.3%; P = .548), in-hospital mortality (18.2% vs 21.7%; P = .764), or aortic-related mortality (1.3% vs 4.3%; P = .654), and no patient had experienced delayed hemorrhagic stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to prior retrospective efforts, results from the Aortic Trauma Foundation international prospective multicenter registry have demonstrated that neither emergent nor urgent TEVAR for patients with concomitant BTAI and TBI was associated with delayed stroke, in-hospital mortality, or aortic-related mortality. In these patients, the timing of TEVAR did not have an effect on the outcomes. Therefore, the decision to intervene should be guided by individual patient factors rather than surgical timing.