Between a rock and a hard place? Not when dealing with traumatic aortic injuries!

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair for traumatic aortic injuries: insight from literature and practical recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for treatment of blunt traumatic aortic injuries (BTAIs) is nowadays the gold standard technique in adult patients, replacing gradually the use of open repair (OR). Although randomized controlled trials will never be performed comparing TEVAR to OR for BTAIs management, trauma and vascular societies guidelines today primarily recommend the former for BTAI patients with a suitable anatomy. The aim of this review was to describe past and recent data published in literature regarding pros and cons of TEVAR treatment in BTAI, and to analyze some debated issues and future perspectives.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA) were used to obtain and describe selected articles on TEVAR in BTAI.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Young (<50 years) men were the most operated population. The use of TEVAR increased over the years, with a progressive reduction in mortality and overall postoperative complication rates when compared with OR. Lack of information remains about the percentage of urgent cases.

CONCLUSIONS

TEVAR is considered nowadays the treatment of choice in BTAI patients. In case of aortic rupture (grade IV) the treatment is mandatory, while intimal tear (grade I) and intramural hematoma (grade II) can be safely managed with no operative management (NOM). Debate is still ongoing on grade III (pseudoaneurysms). Unfortunately, several aspects remain not yet clarified, including disease classification, type and grade to treat, timing (urgent versus elective), priority of vascular injuries in polytrauma patients, and TEVAR use in pediatrics and young patients.