Emergency repair of traumatic aortic rupture: Endovascular versus conventional open repair

A Systematic Review on Thoracic Endovascular Repair Outcomes in Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injuries

PURPOSE

Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) represents a potentially life-threatening condition and thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is recommended as the first-line treatment (Class I level of evidence C) by the current guidelines. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the perioperative and mid-term follow-up outcomes of patients with BTAI treated with TEVAR.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed the English literature published between 2000 and 2022, via Ovid, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, until July 30, 2022. Observational studies and case series, with ≥5 patients, reporting on the perioperative and follow-up outcomes of patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI were included. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were technical success and 30-day mortality, cerebrovascular morbidity. Secondary outcomes were mortality and re-interventions during the mid-term follow-up.

RESULTS

From 5201 articles identified by the literature search, 35 eligible studies were included in this review. All studies had a retrospective study design. In total, 991 patients were included. The mean age was 34.5±16.5 years (range=16-89 years). Technical success was 98.0% (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.98, 0.99, p<0.001, I2=0%). Mortality at 30 days was 5.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.03, 0.06, p<0.001, I2=5.56%). Spinal cord ischemia occurred in 1.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02, p<0.001, I2=0%) and stroke rate was 2.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02, p<0.001, I2=0%). The available follow-up was estimated at 29 months (range=3-119 months) with mortality rate at 2.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02, p<0.001, I2=0%) and re-intervention rate at 1.0% (OR, 95% CI=0.01, 0.02, p<0.001, I2=10.5%).

CONCLUSION

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair showed high technical success and low early cerebrovascular morbidity and mortality rates. In the mid-term follow-up, the estimated mortality and re-intervention rates were also low. Furthermore, higher quality prospective studies are needed.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is recommended as the first line treatement in patients with blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAI). This systematic review of 35 retrospective studies and 991 patients showed high technical success (98.0%) with an associated 30-day mortality at 5.0% and low spinal cord ischemia (1%) and stroke rates (2.0%). Mid-term mortality and re-intervention rates reassure the effectiveness of TEVAR in BTAI cases.

A Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Endovascular Repair Versus Open Surgery for Ruptured Descending Thoracic Aorta

OBJECTIVE

The comparisons between thoracic endovascular aortic repair for ruptured thoracic aorta (TEVAR) and open surgery (OS) have not been well documented, although both procedures have been widely utilized. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effectiveness and safety between TEVAR and OS in the repair of ruptured descending thoracic aorta.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to find relevant studies to assess TEVAR and OS outcomes. The comparative parameters were perioperative mortality (30 day/in-hospital), 1 year mortality, paraplegia or paraparesis, renal insufficiency, stroke, pulmonary embolism, re-intervention rate, pulmonary complications, and cardiac complications. A fixed-effects model was applied to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) on pooled outcomes from different studies.

RESULTS

Eighteen observational trials involving 2088 patients were evaluated (TEVAR=560; OS=1528). Meta-analysis showed that TEVAR in repairing the ruptured descending thoracic aorta was associated with lower perioperative mortality (OR=0.47; 95% CI: 0.34-0.66; p<0.01), 1 year mortality (OR=0.46; 95% CI: 0.29-0.75; p<0.01), renal insufficiency incidence (OR=0.56; 95% CI: 0.33-0.93; p=0.03), and pulmonary complications (OR=0.69; 95% CI: 0.52-0.92; p=0.01) when compared with OS. There was no significant difference between TEVAR and OS in terms of paraplegia, stroke, pulmonary embolism, cardiac complications, and early re-intervention rates. However, the late re-intervention rate was higher in the TEVAR group than that in the OS group.

CONCLUSIONS

When repairing the ruptured descending thoracic aorta, TEVAR may be performed rapidly and safely. TEVAR is associated with lower rates of perioperative morbidity and early postoperative complications than OS.

TEVAR versus open repair of blunt traumatic descending aortic injury in polytraumatic patients involved in motor vehicle accidents

Background

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the standard-of-care for treating traumatic aortic injury (TAI). Few retrospective studies compared TEVAR to open repair in blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI). Our objectives were to compare the early outcomes of TEVAR for blunt traumatic descending aortic injury to open repair (OR) in polytraumatic patients involved in motor vehicle accidents (MVA).

Results

Between February 2005 and April 2017, 71 patients with TAI due to MVA presented to our institution. All patients with descending aortic injuries were considered for open repair (n = 41) or TEVAR (n = 30) if there was no contraindication. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes were stroke, paraplegia, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital stay.

The mean age was 28.4 ± 10.1 years in the OR group and 33.3 ± 16.6 years in TEVAR-group (P = 0.13). The injury severity scores were 41 ± 10 in the OR group and 33 ± 17 in the TEVAR group (P = 0.03). Patients in the OR group underwent emergency repair with a mean time of 0.56 ± 0.18 days from arrival. The TEVAR group had a longer time interval between arrival and procedure (2.1 ± 1.7 days, P = 0.001). The OR group had more blood transfusion (24 (58.5%) vs. 8 (27.5%), P = 0.002), renal impairment (6 (14.6%) vs. 1 (5.50%), P = 0.23), and wound infection (21 (51.2%) vs. 3 (10%), P < 0.001). Three TEVAR patients had a perioperative stroke compared to two patients in the OR group (P = 0.64). There was no difference in the mean ICU (6 ± 8.9 vs. 5.3 ± 2.9 days; P = 0.1) or hospital stay (20.1 ± 12.3 vs. 20.1 ± 18.3, P = 0.62) between the two groups. There were four deaths in the OR group and none in the TEVAR group (P = 0.13).

Conclusion

The results of TEVAR were comparable with the open repair for traumatic aortic injury with good early postoperative outcomes. TEVAR repair could be associated with lower mortality, blood transfusion, and infective complications. However, the complexity of the injury and technical challenges were higher in the open group.

Blunt aortic injuries in the new era: radiologic findings and polytrauma risk assessment dictates management strategy

PURPOSE

Blunt aortic injuries (BAI) have historically been considered an indication for emergent surgical intervention. Nevertheless, the observation that the outcome of the concomitant traumatic injuries has a major impact on prognosis and the rise of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) as an effective therapy for BAI have significantly changed in recent years the treatment algorithm of this condition. Our objective was to identify findings associated with the aortic injury which would be the best predictor of prognosis, with the objective of guiding the decision-making process for selecting the optimal timing of aortic repair.

METHODS

We reviewed blunt aortic injuries from 3 Level I Trauma Centers from July 2008 to December 2016. We analyzed overall and BAI-related 30-day mortality in relation to: hemodynamics, timing of treatment, TEVAR vs open repair, and aortic injury grade as defined by the Society for Vascular Surgery. Based on computed tomographic angiography (CT scan) imaging, we selected the radiologic aortic findings most indicative of high mortality risk, which we defined as "Radiographic Severe Injury" (RSI): (1) total/partial aortic transection, (2) active contrast extravasation, or (3) the association of 2 of more of the following: contained contrast extravasation > 10 mm, periaortic hematoma, and/or mediastinal hematoma with thickness > 10 mm, or significant left pleural effusion.

RESULTS

Of a total of 76 consecutive patients, 50 (66%) underwent immediate repair, 24 (31%) delayed aortic repair, and 2 (3%) died prior to repair. 58 patients (76%) had TEVAR, while 16 (24%) had open repair. Overall mortality was 18% and BAI-related mortality was 13%. In BAI-related mortalities, 70% of patients had RSI. Patients with high risk of overall mortality had hypotension and tachycardia (SBP < 100, HR ≥ 100), high ISS, and required vasopressors. Factors only associated with BAI-related mortality included RSI.

CONCLUSION

CT scan findings suggestive of RSI are predictive of mortality associated with BAI. Radiologic assessment of the severity of the aortic injury with characterization for the presence of RSI may represent the key factors to determine the optimal timing of treatment of the aortic injury and guide the overall treatment strategy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Evaluation and management of blunt traumatic aortic injury: a practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

BACKGROUND

Blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI) is the second most common cause of death in trauma patients. Eighty percent of patients with BTAI will die before reaching a trauma center. The issues of how to diagnose, treat, and manage BTAI were &filig;rst addressed by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) in the practice management guidelines on this topic published in 2000. Since that time, there have been advances in the management of BTAI. As a result, the EAST guidelines committee decided to develop updated guidelines for this topic using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework recently adopted by EAST.

METHODS

A systematic review of the MEDLINE database using PubMed was performed. The search retrieved English language articles regarding BTAI from 1998 to 2013. Letters to the editor, case reports, book chapters, and review articles were excluded. Topics of investigation included imaging to diagnose BTAI, type of operative repair, and timing of operative repair.

RESULTS

Sixty articles were identi&filig;ed. Of these, 51 articles were selected to construct the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

There have been changes in practice since the publication of the previous guidelines in 2000. Computed tomography of the chest with intravenous contrast is strongly recommended to diagnose clinically signi&filig;cant BTAI. Endovascular repair is strongly recommended for patients without contraindications. Delayed repair of BTAI is suggested, with the stipulation that effective blood pressure control must be used in these patients.

Epidemiology of concomitant injuries in traumatic thoracic aortic rupture: a meta-analysis

Traumatic thoracic aortic rupture is a highly lethal injury. For those who arrive alive at the hospital, it is of utmost importance to quickly evaluate concomitant injuries and prioritize therapeutic interventions. We aimed to review the frequency of concomitant injuries in patients with thoracic aortic rupture, according to anatomic location and type of injury. A systematic literature search of six medical databases led to the identification of 90 publications; 27 categories of thoracic aortic rupture concomitant injuries were thereafter created. The respective pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals were calculated and ranked in order of frequency. Among the 7258 patients studied, orthopedic fractures were the most frequent thoracic aortic rupture concomitant injury, amounting to a high pooled proportion of almost 70%, followed by thoracic injury in ∼50% and abdominal injury in over 40%. Pooled proportion for any type of head injury was also high (37%) pointing to the multiple-injury type of lesions among thoracic aortic rupture victims. Thoracic aortic rupture is a devastating injury, but rarely occurs as a sole traumatic entity. The recognition of concomitant thoracic, abdominal, head injuries and fractures after thoracic aortic rupture is of paramount importance. Future studies should focus on the impact of these injuries upon survival, morbidity and disability of multiple-injured thoracic aortic rupture patients.

Hypothermic circulatory arrest for acute traumatic aortic rupture associated with shock

PURPOSE

Hypothermic circulatory arrest is considered to be a contraindication in acute traumatic aortic rupture (TAR) because full heparinization and hypothermia may lead to fatal bleeding if concomitant hemorrhagic injuries are present. However, in extremely emergent situations, rapid volume infusion via cardiotomy vacuums and the institution of hypothermic circulatory arrest appears to be the only method for saving patients with uncontrollable bleeding. In this study, we evaluate the feasibility of hypothermic circulatory arrest for treating patients with TAR with hemorrhagic shock.

METHODS

Ten patients (nine men and one woman; mean age, 35 ± 18 years), with acute TAR caused by blunt chest trauma and in a shock state, underwent surgery between 1999 and 2007. All ten patients exhibited rupture of the isthmus, and polytraumatism was frequent. Any life-threatening blood loss from other injuries was surgically treated before aortic surgery. All patients were operated on with standard cardiopulmonary bypass under hypothermic circulatory arrest.

RESULTS

All patients received prosthetic graft replacement. The overall hospital mortality was 10.0% (1/10). One patient died of intraabdominal and pulmonary bleeding during surgery, and the other nine were discharged without complications. There was no evidence of any new or increased hemorrhagic complications during heparinization in the nine surviving patients. Mean operation and circulatory arrest times were 305 ± 44 min and 27 ± 7 min, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Hypothermic circulatory arrest is feasible for saving TAR patients with unstable hemodynamics resulting from rupture, provided associated injuries are properly treated in advance.

Endovascular grafts for treatment of traumatic injury to the aortic arch and great vessels

BACKGROUND

Treatment of traumatic vascular injury using endovascular techniques has evolved as endovascular capabilities have advanced over the past several decades. Several endovascular techniques have been employed to address the challenges of traumatic arterial injury, including coil embolization and the use of stents, which may be either bare metal or covered with graft material. Compared with traditional surgical repair, endovascular stent grafting for the repair of traumatic arterial injury offers the advantage of decreased morbidity because a remote access site may be used, avoiding surgical dissection and lengthy operating times.

METHODS

A Medline (1995-2007) search was performed to find all studies discussing the use of endovascular means to treat supradiaphragmatic arterial trauma.

RESULTS

In this review of 195 studies published between January 1995 and December 2007, the overall technical success rate of endovascular treatment of supradiaphragmatic arterial injury was 96.7%, and the complication rate was 6.4%.

CONCLUSION

The results of this review suggest a potential morbidity and mortality benefit over traditional open repair; however, long-term data are lacking. Long-term follow-up for stent durability is of particular concern in the trauma population, which tends to comprise younger patients with minimal atherosclerotic disease. The success of endovascular techniques is also limited by the availability of skilled interventionalists, properly outfitted angiography suites, and suitable stent graft devices. Despite these challenges, the potential advantages of endovascular stenting make it a welcome addition to the armamentarium of the vascular interventionalist who treats arterial traumatic injuries.

Current management of traumatic rupture of the descending thoracic aorta

Traumatic rupture of the descending thoracic aorta remains a leading cause of death following major blunt trauma. Management has evolved from uniformly performing emergent open repair with clamp and sew technique to include open repair with mechanical circulatory support, medical management and most recently, endovascular repair. This latter approach appears, in the short term, to be associated with perhaps better outcome, but long term data is still accruing. While an attractive option, there are specific anatomic and physiologic factors to be considered in each individual case.

Endovascular repair of tracheo-innominate artery fistula

Innominate arterial wall rupture with pseudoaneurysm formation was found during angiography in a 39-year-old woman 2 days after she had undergone percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy. Endovascular stent surgery and balloon angioplasty were performed but these procedures failed to control the massive bleeding resulting from an endoleak. We report the clinical presentations and describe the treatment of a tracheo-innominate artery fistula in our patient. We also reviewed the algorithms of management and the rescue options for treating a tracheo-innominate artery fistula.