A systematic review and meta-regression analysis of nonoperative management of blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury in 2897 patients

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Nonoperative Management for SVS Grade II Blunt Traumatic Aortic Injury

BACKGROUND

Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury is defined as intramural hematoma with or without external contour abnormality. It is uncertain whether this aortic injury pattern should be treated with endovascular stent-grafting or nonoperative measures. Since the adoption of the SVS Guidelines on endovascular repair of blunt traumatic aortic injury, the practice pattern for management of grade II injuries has been heterogenous. The objective of the study was to report natural history outcomes of grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury.

METHODS

A systematic review of published traumatic aortic injury studies was performed. Online database searches were current to November 2022. Eligible studies included data on aortic injuries that were both managed nonoperatively and classified according to the SVS 2011 Guidelines. Data points on all-cause mortality, aorta-related mortality and early aortic intervention were extracted and underwent meta-analysis. The methodology was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis with a total of 204 cases of SVS grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury treated nonoperatively. The outcomes rates were estimated at 10.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.7%-14.9%) for all-cause mortality, 2.9% (95% CI 1.1%-5.7%) for aorta-related mortality, and 3.3% (95% CI 1.4%-6.2%) for early aortic intervention. The studies included in the analysis were of fair quality with a mean Downs and Black score 15 (±1.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury follows a relatively benign course with few instances of aortic-related mortality. Death in the setting of this injury pattern is more often attributable to sequelae of multisystem trauma and not directly related to aortic injury. The current data support nonoperative management and imaging surveillance for grade II blunt traumatic aortic injury instead of endovascular repair. Longer-term effects on the aorta at the site of injury are unknown.

Thoracic Spine Fractures with Blunt Aortic Injury: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Characteristics

Background: The coexistence of thoracic fractures and blunt aortic injury (BAI) is potentially catastrophic and easy to be missed in acute trauma settings. Data regarding patients with thoracic fractures complicated with BAI are limited. Methods: The authors conducted a prospective, observational, single-center study including patients with thoracic burst fractures. A multivariate logistic regression model was developed to determine the risk factors of aortic injury. Results: In total, 124 patients with burst fractures of the thoracic spine were included. The incidence of BAI was 11.3% (14/124) in patients with thoracic burst fractures. Among these patients, 11 patients with BAI were missed diagnoses. The main risk factors of BAI were as follows: Injury severity score (OR 1.184; 95% CI, 1.072–1.308; p = 0.001), mechanism of injury, such as crush (OR 10.474; 95% CI, 1.905–57.579; p = 0.007), flail chest (OR = 4.917; 95% CI, 1.122–21.545; p = 0.035), and neurological deficit (OR = 8.299; 95% CI, 0.999–68.933; p = 0.05). Conclusions: BAI (incidence 11.3%) is common in patients with burst fractures of the thoracic spine and is an easily missed diagnosis. We must maintain a high suspicion of injury for BAI when patients with thoracic burst fractures present with these high-risk factors.

Early Clinical Diagnosis and Treatment of Traumatic Aortic Injury Caused by Thoracic and Abdominal Injuries: A Series of Four Cases with Literature Review

Aortic injury, particularly traumatic aortic dissection caused by thoracic and abdominal injuries, is extremely rare. The diagnosis rate of blunt aortic injury caused by chest and abdominal injuries is often low, and its clinical manifestations are atypical. Once missed or misdiagnosed, the consequences are serious. Early diagnosis of traumatic aortic injury in complex thoracic and abdominal injuries is a key factor in reducing the mortality of trauma patients. Among all trauma patients treated in our department from December 2018 to December 2020, we diagnosed four cases of aortic injury, including three cases of aortic dissection and one case of intramural hematoma. Successful surgical treatment and clinical outcome were achieved in all four patients. We found that early diagnosis and surgical treatment can help to reduce the mortality of patients with traumatic aortic injury and improve the prognosis.

Chronic Blunt Traumatic Thoracic Aortic Injuries: Report of three cases from Oman

Blunt thoracic aortic injuries are potentially lethal. Those who survive may form an organised haematoma in the periadventitial space resulting in a pseudoaneurysm, which may be identified incidentally decades later. While the role of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in acute settings has been established, its role in chronic cases is yet to be defined. We report three cases that were diagnosed incidentally six, nine and 18 years after the injury. Two were managed by TEVAR while the third declined intervention and is on annual follow-up. Patients with asymptomatic and stable pseudoaneurysms of the descending thoracic aorta should be offered surveillance versus TEVAR because the risk of rupture is not negligible, whilst taking into account the patient’s level of physical activity. These three cases highlight the importance of early diagnosis of aortic injuries in blunt trauma and its grading.

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.