Bernardino C Branco1, Joseph J DuBose2, Luke X Zhan3, John D Hughes3, Kay R Goshima3, Peter Rhee4, Joseph L Mills5. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz. 2. Department of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston, Houston, Tex. 3. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz. 4. Division of Trauma, Critical Care and Emergency Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz. 5. Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Ariz. Electronic address: jmills@u.arizona.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The rapid evolution of endovascular surgery has greatly expanded management options for a wide variety of vascular diseases. Endovascular therapy provides a less invasive alternative to open surgery for critically ill patients who have sustained arterial injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate recent trends in the management of arterial injuries in the United States with specific reference to the use of endovascular strategies and to examine the outcomes of endovascular vs open therapy for the treatment of civilian arterial traumatic injuries. METHODS: A 9-year analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank was performed to identify all patients who sustained arterial injuries. Demographics, clinical data, interventions, and outcomes were extracted. Propensity scores were used to match endovascular patients to those undergoing open operation. Patient outcomes were compared according to treatment approach. RESULTS: A total of 23,105 patients were available for analysis. Overall, there was a significant increase in the use of endovascular procedures during 9 years (from 0.3% in 2002 to 9.0% in 2010; P < .001), particularly among blunt trauma patients (from 0.4% in 2002 to 13.2% in 2010; P < .001). This increase was noteworthy and dramatic for injuries of the internal iliac artery (from 8.0% in 2002 to 40.3% in 2010; P < .001), thoracic aorta (from 0.5% in 2002 to 21.9% in 2010; P < .001), and common/external iliac arteries (from 0.4% in 2002 to 20.4% in 2010; P < .001). A significant decrease was noted for open procedures (49.1% in 2002 to 45.6%; P < .001), especially for blunt trauma (42.9% in 2002 to 35.8% in 2010; P < .001). There was a stepwise increase in the proportion of patients managed by endovascular therapy as the Injury Severity Score increased (highest in the spectrum Injury Severity Score 31-50). When outcomes were compared between matched patients who underwent endovascular and open procedures, patients who underwent endovascular procedures had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (12.9% vs 22.4%; odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.6; P < .001). Endovascular patients also had decreased rates of sepsis (7.5% vs 5.4%; odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-0.9; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: The use of endovascular therapy in the United States has increased dramatically during the last decade, in particular among severely injured blunt trauma patients. Endovascular therapy was associated with improved in-hospital mortality and lower rates of sepsis.
OBJECTIVE: The rapid evolution of endovascular surgery has greatly expanded management options for a wide variety of vascular diseases. Endovascular therapy provides a less invasive alternative to open surgery for critically illpatients who have sustained arterial injuries. The purpose of this study was to evaluate recent trends in the management of arterial injuries in the United States with specific reference to the use of endovascular strategies and to examine the outcomes of endovascular vs open therapy for the treatment of civilian arterial traumatic injuries. METHODS: A 9-year analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank was performed to identify all patients who sustained arterial injuries. Demographics, clinical data, interventions, and outcomes were extracted. Propensity scores were used to match endovascular patients to those undergoing open operation. Patient outcomes were compared according to treatment approach. RESULTS: A total of 23,105 patients were available for analysis. Overall, there was a significant increase in the use of endovascular procedures during 9 years (from 0.3% in 2002 to 9.0% in 2010; P < .001), particularly among blunt traumapatients (from 0.4% in 2002 to 13.2% in 2010; P < .001). This increase was noteworthy and dramatic for injuries of the internal iliac artery (from 8.0% in 2002 to 40.3% in 2010; P < .001), thoracic aorta (from 0.5% in 2002 to 21.9% in 2010; P < .001), and common/external iliac arteries (from 0.4% in 2002 to 20.4% in 2010; P < .001). A significant decrease was noted for open procedures (49.1% in 2002 to 45.6%; P < .001), especially for blunt trauma (42.9% in 2002 to 35.8% in 2010; P < .001). There was a stepwise increase in the proportion of patients managed by endovascular therapy as the Injury Severity Score increased (highest in the spectrum Injury Severity Score 31-50). When outcomes were compared between matched patients who underwent endovascular and open procedures, patients who underwent endovascular procedures had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (12.9% vs 22.4%; odds ratio, 0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-0.6; P < .001). Endovascular patients also had decreased rates of sepsis (7.5% vs 5.4%; odds ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.5-0.9; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: The use of endovascular therapy in the United States has increased dramatically during the last decade, in particular among severely injured blunt traumapatients. Endovascular therapy was associated with improved in-hospital mortality and lower rates of sepsis.
Authors: Jamie B Hadley; Julia R Coleman; Ernest E Moore; Ryan Lawless; Clay C Burlew; Barry Platnick; Fredric M Pieracci; Melanie R Hoehn; Jamie J Coleman; Eric M Campion; Mitchell J Cohen; Alexis Cralley; Andrew P Eitel; Matthew Bartley; Navin Vigneshwar; Angela Sauaia; Charles J Fox Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 3.697