Vascular complications secondary to resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta placement at a Level 1 Trauma Center.

OBJECTIVE: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is designed to manage severe hemorrhagic shock. Popularized in medical care during military conflicts, the concept has emerged as a lifesaving technique that is utilized around the United States. Literature on risks of REBOA placement, especially vascular injuries, are not well-reported. Our goal was to assess the incidence of vascular injury from REBOA placement and the risk factors associated with injury and death among these patients at our institution. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients who underwent REBOA placement between September 2017 and June 2022 at our Level 1 Trauma Center. The primary outcome variable was the presence of an injury related to REBOA insertion or use. Secondary outcomes studied were limb loss, the need for dialysis, and mortality. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, χ2, and t-tests as appropriate for the variable type. RESULTS: We identified 99 patients who underwent REBOA placement during the study period. The mean age of patients was 43.1 ± 17.2 years, and 67.7% (67/99) were males. The majority of injuries were from blunt trauma (79.8%; 79/99). Twelve of the patients (12.1%; 12/99) had a vascular injury related to REBOA placement. All but one required intervention. The complications included local vessel injury (58.3%; 7/12), distal embolization (16.7%; 2/12), excessive bleeding requiring vascular consult (8.3%; 1/12), pseudoaneurysm requiring intervention (8.3%; 1/12), and one incident of inability to remove the REBOA device (8.3%; 1/12). The repairs were performed by vascular surgery (75%; 9/12), interventional radiology (16.7%; 2/12), and trauma surgery (8.3%; 1/12). There was no association of age, gender, race, and blunt vs penetrating injury to REBOA-related complications. Mortality in this patient population was high (40.4%), but there was no association with REBOA-related complications. Ipsilateral limb loss occurred in two patients with REBOA-related injuries, but both were due to their injuries and not to REBOA-related ischemia. CONCLUSIONS: Although vascular complications are not unusual in REBOA placement, there does not appear to be an association with limb loss, dialysis, or mortality if they are addressed promptly. Close coordination between vascular surgeons and trauma surgeons is essential in patients undergoing REBOA placement.

Long-term functional outcomes of upper extremity civilian vascular trauma.

OBJECTIVE: Civilian analyses of long-term outcomes of upper extremity vascular trauma (UEVT) are limited. Our goal was to evaluate the management of UEVT in the civilian trauma population and explore the long-term functional consequences. METHODS: A retrospective review and analysis was performed of patients with UEVT at an urban Level 1 trauma center (2001-2022). Management and long-term functional outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 150 patients with UEVT. Mean age was 34 years, and 85% were male. There were 42% Black and 27% White patients. Mechanism was penetrating in 79%, blunt in 20%, and multifactorial in 1%. Within penetrating trauma, mechanism was from firearms in 30% of cases. Of blunt injuries, 27% were secondary to falls, 13% motorcycle collisions, 13% motor vehicle collisions, and 3% crush injuries. Injuries were isolated arterial in 62%, isolated venous in 13%, and combined in 25% of cases. Isolated arterial injuries included brachial (34%), radial (27%), ulnar (27%), axillary (8%), and subclavian (4%). The majority of arterial injuries (92%) underwent open repair with autologous vein bypass (34%), followed by primary repair (32%), vein patch (6.6%), and prosthetic graft (3.3%). There were 23% that underwent fasciotomies, 68% of which were prophylactic. Two patients were managed with endovascular interventions; one underwent covered stent placement and the other embolization. Perioperative reintervention occurred in 12% of patients. Concomitant injuries included nerves (35%), bones (17%), and ligaments (16%). Intensive care unit admission was required in 45%, with mean intensive care unit length of stay 1.6 days. Mean hospital length of stay was 6.7 days. Major amputation and in-hospital mortality rates were 1.3% and 4.6% respectively. The majority (72%) had >6-month follow-up, with a median follow-up period of 197 days. Trauma readmissions occurred in 19%. Many patients experienced chronic pain (56%), as well as motor (54%) and sensory (61%) deficits. Additionally, 41% had difficulty with activities of daily living. Of previously employed patients (57%), 39% experienced a >6-month delay in returning to work. Most patients (82%) were discharged with opioids; of these, 16% were using opioids at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: UEVT is associated with long-term functional impairments and opioid use. It is imperative to counsel patients prior to discharge and ensure appropriate follow-up and therapy.

Long-term outcomes of autologous vein bypass for repair of upper and lower extremity major arterial trauma.

OBJECTIVE: Autologous vein is the preferred bypass conduit for extremity arterial injuries owing to superior patency and low infection risk; however, long-term data on outcomes in civilians are limited. Our goal was to assess short- and long-term outcomes of autologous vein bypass for upper and lower extremity arterial trauma. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of patients with major extremity arterial injuries (2001-2019) at a level I trauma center. Demographics, injury and intervention details, and outcomes were recorded. Primary outcomes were primary patency at 1 year and 3 years. Secondary outcomes were limb function at 6 months, major amputation, and mortality. Multivariable analysis determined risk factors for functional impairment. RESULTS: There were 107 extremity arterial injuries (31.8% upper and 68.2% lower) treated with autologous vein bypass. Mechanism was penetrating in 77% of cases, of which 79.3% were due to firearms. The most frequently injured vessels were the common and superficial femoral (38%), popliteal (30%), and brachial arteries (29%). For upper extremity trauma, concomitant nerve and orthopedic injuries were found in 15 (44.1%) and 11 (32.4%) cases, respectively. For lower extremities, concomitant nerve injuries were found in 10 (13.7%) cases, and orthopedic injuries in 31 (42.5%). Great saphenous vein was the conduit in 96% of cases. Immediate intraoperative bypass revision occurred in 9.3% of patients, most commonly for graft thrombosis. The in-hospital return to operating room rate was 15.9%, with graft thrombosis (47.1%) and wound infections (23.5%) being the most common reasons. The median follow-up was 3.6 years. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed 92% primary patency at 1 year and 90% at 3 years. At 6 months, 36.1% of patients had functional impairment. Of patients with functional impairment at 6 months, 62.9% had concomitant nerve and 60% concomitant orthopedic injuries. Of those with nerve injury, 91.7% had functional impairment, compared with 17.8% without nerve injury (P < .001). Of patients with orthopedic injuries, 51.2% had functional impairment, vs 25% of those without orthopedic injuries (P = .01). On multivariable analysis, concomitant nerve injury (odds ratio, 127.4; 95% confidence interval, 17-957; P <. 001) and immediate intraoperative revision (odds ratio, 11.03; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-95.55; P = .029) were associated with functional impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Autologous vein bypass for major extremity arterial trauma is durable; however, many patients have long-term limb dysfunction associated with concomitant nerve injury and immediate intraoperative bypass revision. These factors may allow clinicians to identify patients at higher risk for functional impairment, to outline patient expectations and direct rehabilitation efforts toward improving functional outcomes.

Current outcomes following upper and lower extremity arterial trauma from the National Trauma Data Bank.

OBJECTIVE: The modern treatments of trauma have changed in recent years. We aim to evaluate the factors associated with limb salvage and mortality after extremity arterial trauma, especially with respect to the type of conduit used in revascularization. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was queried to identify patients with upper and lower extremity (UE and LE) arterial injuries between 2016 and 2020. The patients were stratified by the types of arterial repair. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: 8780 patients were found with 5054 (58%) UE and 3726 (42%) LE injuries. Eighty-three percent were men, and the mean age was 34 ± 15 years. Penetrating mechanism was the predominant mode of injury in both UEs and LEs (73% and 67%, respectively) with a mean injury severity score of 14 ± 8. For UEs, the majority underwent primary repair (67%, P < .001), whereas the remainder received either a bypass (20%) or interposition graft (12%). However, LEs were more likely to receive a bypass (52%, P < .00001) than primary repair or interposition graft (34% and 14%, respectively). Compared with the extremely low rates of amputation and mortality among UE patients (2% for both), LE injuries were more likely to result in both amputation (10%, P < .001) and death (6%, P < .001). Notably, compared with primary repair, the use of a prosthetic conduit was associated with a 6.7-fold increase in the risk of amputation in UE and a 2.4-fold increase in LE (P < .0001 for both). Synthetic bypasses were associated with a nearly 3-fold increase in return to the operating room (OR) in UE bypasses (P < .05) and a 2.4-fold increase in return to the OR in LE bypasses (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In recent years, most extremity vascular trauma was due to penetrating injury with a substantial burden of morbidity and mortality. However, both limb salvage rates and survival rates have remained high. Overall, LE injuries more often led to amputation and mortality than UE injuries. The most frequently used bypass conduit was vein, which was associated with less risk of unplanned return to the OR and limb loss, corroborating current practice guidelines for extremity arterial trauma.

Incidence and characteristics of vascular trauma at a level 2 trauma center.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the significant number of trauma patients treated at level 2 trauma centers (L2TCs) in the United States, most of the literature describing vascular trauma is from level 1 trauma centers (L1TCs). Currently, trauma center designation criteria do not require vascular surgery as a necessary component service. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for all trauma patients with a vascular surgery consultation seen at our L2TC between 2013 and 2018. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, and outcomes were collected and analyzed with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 3062 trauma patients evaluated at our L2TC, 110 (3.6%) had a vascular surgery consultation. Operative intervention was performed in 35.2% of consults, and 1.0% of all trauma patients had a vascular intervention. Average age was 57 years, and the majority were male (n = 75; 68.2%). Mean Injury Severity Score was 12.0 ± 9.6, and blunt injury (n = 77; 87.5%) was more common than penetrating (n = 11; 12.5%). The most common location of injury was the lower extremity (n = 23; 74.2%), followed by upper extremity (n = 3; 9.7%), chest (n = 2; 6.5%), neck (n = 2; 6.5%), and pelvis (n = 1; 3.2%). Endovascular interventions were performed by the vascular surgery service in 67.7% (n = 21) of all injuries. There was one amputation (3.2%) and one postoperative mortality (3.2%). CONCLUSIONS: At our L2TC, postoperative morbidity and mortality rates at 30 days were substantially lower compared with previously reported data. However, mean injury severity score and the incidence of penetrating and polytrauma were also lower at our institution. Most patients were managed nonoperatively, but when they did require an operation, endovascular therapies were more commonly implemented. Vascular surgery should be considered an integral service in trauma level designation, and there is a need for further investigation of these outcomes in L2TCs.

Female sex is independently associated with reduced inpatient mortality after endovascular repair of blunt thoracic aortic injury.

BACKGROUND: Female sex has been associated with decreased mortality after blunt trauma, but whether sex influences the outcomes of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for traumatic blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is unknown. METHODS: In this retrospective study of a prospectively maintained database, the Vascular Quality Initiative registry was queried from 2013 to 2020 for patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI. Univariate Student's t-tests and χ2 tests were performed, followed by multivariate logistic regression for variables associated with inpatient mortality. RESULTS: Of 806 eligible patients, 211 (26.2%) were female. Female patients were older (47.9 vs 41.8 years, P < .0001) and less likely to smoke (38.3% vs 48.2%, P = .044). Most patients presented with grade III BTAI (54.5% female, 53.6% male), followed by grade IV (19.0% female, 19.5% male). Mean Injury Severity Scores (30.9 + 20.3 female, 30.5 + 18.8 male) and regional Abbreviated Injury Score did not vary by sex. Postoperatively, female patients were less likely to die as inpatients (3.8% vs 7.9%, P = .042) and to be discharged home (41.4% vs 52.2%, P = .008). On multivariate logistic regression, female sex (odds ratio [OR]: 0.05, P = .002) was associated with reduced inpatient mortality. Advanced age (OR: 1.06, P < .001), postoperative transfusion (OR: 1.05, P = .043), increased Injury Severity Score (OR: 1.03, P = .039), postoperative stroke (OR: 9.09, P = .016), postoperative myocardial infarction (OR: 9.9, P = .017), and left subclavian coverage (OR: 2.7, P = .029) were associated with inpatient death. CONCLUSIONS: Female sex is associated with lower odds of inpatient mortality after TEVAR for BTAI, independent of age, injury severity, BTAI grade, and postoperative complications. Further study of the influence of sex on postdischarge outcomes is needed.

Association between time to revascularization and limb loss in military femoropopliteal arterial injuries.

OBJECTIVE: Expeditious revascularization is key to limb salvage after arterial injuries, but the relationship between time to revascularization and amputation risk is not well-defined. We aimed to explore amputation risk based on time to revascularization in a cohort of military femoropopliteal arterial injuries. METHODS: A database of vascular injuries from Iraq and Afghanistan casualties (2004-2012) was queried for femoral (common, superficial, or deep) and/or popliteal arterial injuries that underwent revascularization. Time from injury to initial revascularization (via shunt or reconstruction) was divided into groups of <3 hours, 3 to 6 hours, 6 to 9 hours, and >9 hours, and bivariate comparisons were performed. RESULTS: Revascularization times were available for 120 cases. Injury and treatment characteristics by time group were generally similar between time groups. Shunting and vein injuries were more common in limbs revascularized earlier, whereas blast mechanism and fasciotomy were more common with later revascularization. Ten cases (8%) underwent revascularization in less than 3 hours, 63 (53%) were revascularized in 3 to 6 hours, 33 (28%) in 6 to 9 hours, and 14 (12%) after 9 hours. Amputation rates within the cohorts were 10%, 21%, 24%, and 50%, respectively (P = .085, χ2 of amputation rates across time groups). The mean ± standard deviation revascularization time for amputated limbs was 442 ± 348 minutes vs 347 ± 183 minutes for salvaged limbs (P = .057). Amputation was performed in 19% of limbs revascularized in <6 hours and in 32% revascularized >6 hours from injury (P = .112). The >9-hour group, however, had a 50% amputation rate vs 21% for those with revascularization in <9 hours (P = .016). Fractures were more common in >9-hour limbs than <9-hour limbs (79% vs 44%; P = .016), but other limb injury characteristics were similar, with no difference in limb injury severity scores. Among 91 salvaged limbs, neither vascular nor other complications were predicted by time to revascularization. All seven >9-hour limbs had a limb complication, most commonly infection (71%), and three (42%) required a skin graft to close their fasciotomies. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing time from injury to initial revascularization was associated with increasing rates of limb loss. Revascularization within 3 hours of injury resulted in a low amputation rate, whereas one-half of limbs treated after 9 hours were amputated. Arterial shunting was associated with earlier revascularization and should be considered a mainstay of combat casualty vascular care. Forward-deployed surgical assets play a pivotal role in providing early revascularization and reducing rates of limb loss in modern combat casualty care.

Outcomes of vascular trauma associated with an evolution in the use of endovascular management.

OBJECTIVE: The availability of endovascular techniques has led to a paradigm shift in the management of vascular injury. Although previous reports showed trends towards the increased use of catheter-based techniques, there have been no contemporary studies of practice patterns and how these approaches differ by anatomic distributions of injury. The objective of this study is to provide a temporal assessment of the use of endovascular techniques in the management of torso, junctional (subclavian, axillary, iliac), and extremity injury and to evaluate any association with survival and length of stay. METHODS: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Prospective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment registry (PROOVIT) is the only large multicenter database focusing specifically on the management of vascular trauma. Patients in the AAST PROOVIT registry from 2013 to 2019 with arterial injuries were queried, and radial/ulnar, and tibial artery injuries were excluded. The primary aim was to evaluate the frequency in use of endovascular techniques over time and by body region. A secondary analysis evaluated the trends for junctional injuries and compared the mortality between those treated with open vs endovascular repair. RESULTS: Of the 3249 patients included, 76% were male, and overall treatment type was 42% nonoperative, 44% open, and 14% endovascular. Endovascular treatment increased an average of 2% per year from 2013 to 2019 (range, 17%-35%; R2 = .61). The use of endovascular techniques for junctional injuries increased by 5% per year (range, 33%-63%; R2 = .89). Endovascular treatment was more common for thoracic, abdominal, and cerebrovascular injuries, and least likely in upper and lower extremity injuries. Injury severity score was higher for patients receiving endovascular repair in every vascular bed except lower extremity. Endovascular repair was associated with significantly lower mortality than open repair for thoracic (5% vs 46%; P < .001) and abdominal injuries (15% vs 38%; P < .001). For junctional injuries, endovascular repair was associated with a non-statistically significant lower mortality (19% vs 29%; P = .099), despite higher injury severity score (25 vs 21; P = .003) compared with open repair. CONCLUSIONS: The reported use of endovascular techniques within the PROOVIT registry increased more than 10% over a 6-year period. This increase was associated with improved survival, especially for patients with junctional vascular injuries. Practices and training programs should account for these changes by providing access to endovascular technologies and instruction in the catheter-based skill sets to optimize outcomes in the future.

Epidemiology and Outcomes of Peripheral and Non-Aortocaval Vascular Trauma in Scotland 2011 - 2018.

OBJECTIVE: This population based study aimed to examine the demographics, mechanisms, and outcomes of patients in Scotland suffering peripheral and non-aortocaval vascular trauma between 2011 and 2018. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted using prospectively collected data derived from the Scottish Trauma Audit Group (STAG) from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2018. Peripheral and non-aortocaval vascular trauma patients were identified using Abbreviated Injury Severity (AIS) codes. Demographics, mechanisms, types of injury, severity, and outcomes were analysed. RESULTS: Of 30 831 patients admitted with trauma to Scottish hospitals, 569 (1.8%) patients suffered a vascular injury during the eight year study period with 275 (0.9%) patients sustaining a peripheral or non-aortocaval vascular injury. There were 221 (80%) men and 54 (20%) women with a median (range) age of 39 (14 - 88) years. Blunt trauma was responsible for 179 (65%) injuries, of which road traffic accidents were the most common mechanism. A further 67 (24%) injuries were due to penetrating trauma, of which assault was the most common cause. The most common injury was to abdominal arteries (e.g., hepatic, renal, splenic [n = 83]) with an associated mortality rate of 17%. The median (range) Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 16 (4 - 75). Sixteen (6%) patients died in the Emergency Department (ED). Two hundred and twenty-seven (83%) patients were taken to theatre during their admission with a 30 day peri-operative mortality rate of 10%, compared with an overall mortality rate of 16%. Injuries to an abdominal vein (e.g., portal, renal, splenic, superior mesenteric) had the highest number of associated deaths, with 11 (32%) of 34 cases resulting in a fatality. CONCLUSION: There is a low incidence of vascular trauma in Scotland. Blunt force was responsible for more vascular injuries than penetrating trauma. Patients with peripheral and non-aortocaval vascular injuries are likely to be severely injured and suffer a high mortality rate.

Editor's Choice - In Hospital and Long Term Outcomes After Repair of Subclavian and Axillary Artery Injuries.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the in hospital and long term outcomes after open or endovascular repair of subclavian and axillary artery injuries. METHODS: This was a retrospective, single centre study. Data were reviewed from patients with subclavian and or axillary injuries who presented to the authors' centre between January 2009 and December 2022. Outcome data included complications, death, amputations, and re-interventions. A p value < .050 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Over the study period, 62 patients with subclavian or axillary trauma were admitted to the study hospital. Patients were young (median age 32.5 years, range 12 - 53) and most were men (85%); 32 patients experienced blunt trauma, and 30 penetrating trauma. The median injury severity score was 18 (interquartile range [IQR] 9, 34), and 47% of patients had a brachial plexus injury. The arterial injury was occlusion in 62% of patients, and the median ischaemia time was 12.5 hours (IQR 7.13, 24). All patients with subclavian injuries (n = 37) and 13 of 25 patients with an axillary injury underwent endovascular repair (stent graft placement). Open repair was performed in 12 patients with axillary injury (axillobrachial bypass in seven patients). At hospital discharge, the amputation free survival rate was 82% vs. 92% (p = .67), the mortality rate was 10% vs. 8% (p = 1.0), and the amputation rate was 10% vs. 0 (p = .57) for endovascular and open repair, respectively. The mean follow up time was 4.1 ± 3.5 years. After the seven year follow up, the stent primary patency was 42%. No re-interventions or amputations were performed after hospital discharge. Disability was related to fractures and soft tissue and brachial plexus injuries. CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment was preferred for patients with subclavian artery injuries. Open repair was preferred for patients with penetrating axillary injuries. In hospital and long term complications were related to fractures and soft tissue and brachial plexus injuries, rather than the treatment of arterial injuries. Measures are needed to reduce ischaemia time and improve brachial plexus injury repair.

Postoperative antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation use does not impact complication or reintervention rates after vein repair of arterial injury: A PROOVIT study.

INTRODUCTION: The use of antiplatelet (AP) and anticoagulation (AC) therapy after autogenous vein repair of traumatic arterial injury is controversial. The hypothesis in this study was that there is no difference in early postoperative outcomes regardless of whether AC, AP, both, or neither are used. METHODS: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) PROspective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment (PROOVIT) registry was queried from November, 2013, to January, 2019, for arterial injuries repaired with a vein graft. Demographics and injury characteristics were compared. Need for in-hospital reoperation was the primary outcome in this four-arm study, assessed with two ordinal logistic regression models (1. no therapy vs. AC only vs. AC and AP; 2. no therapy vs. AP only vs. AC and AP). RESULTS: 373 patients (52 no therapy, 88 AP only, 77 AC only, 156 both) from 19 centers with recorded Injury Severity Scores (ISS) were identified. Patients who received no therapy were younger than those who received AP (27.0 vs. 34.2, p = 0.02), had higher transfusion requirement (p < 0.01 between all groups) and a different distribution of anatomic injury (p < 0.01). After controlling for age, sex, ISS, platelet count, hemoglobin, pH, lactate, INR, transfusion requirement and anatomic location, there was no association with postoperative medical therapy and in-hospital operative reintervention, or any secondary outcome, including thrombosis (p = 0.67, p = 0.22). CONCLUSIONS: Neither AC nor AP alone, nor in combination, impact complication rate after arterial repair with autologous vein. These patients can be safely treated with or without antithrombotics, recognizing that this study did not demonstrate a beneficial effect.

Peripheral vascular trauma - basic management, diagnosis and treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Peripheral vascular injuries occur in 1-3% of all traumas in civilian settings. The management of these injuries is often based on experience derived from war medicine where these injuries are more common. The goal of this article is to summarize basic guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of vascular injuries. METHODS: Western Trauma Association (WTA) and Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) both have their own guidelines for vascular trauma management. RESULTS: Vascular injuries occur both in penetrating and blunt traumas. Complete vessel disruption occurs more frequently in penetrating traumas. In the case of blunt trauma, intimal defects are more common, resulting in dissection, false aneurysm, or intramural hematoma. The limb is mostly endangered due to ischemia, reperfusion injury and the compartment syndrome. Prompt diagnosis and treatment are paramount. Vascular trauma management is part of the ATLS protocol and life-over-limb principle. The primary goal is to stop the massive external bleeding. Clinical examination and CT angiography are the most helpful for the diagnosis. Surgical revision is indicated when hard signs are present. This can be a damage control surgery with the primary goal to stop the bleeding as quickly as possible. A shunt can be used for temporary reperfusion of the limb. Definitive treatment can take the form of a simple suture, patches or graft interposition; both prosthetic and autologous grafts are used. Sufficient debridement and fasciotomy are important steps in the therapy. In some cases, endovascular treatment can be used. CONCLUSION: Over the last century, the treatment strategy changed dramatically. Data from recent military conflicts show a decrease in amputation rates, and limb salvage has become a standard.

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.

Our clinical experiences of vascular injuries due to lumbar disc surgeries.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate emergency vascular complications of the lumbar disc reconstructive surgery in this study. METHOD: Between March 2006 and February 2020, nine patients (six males and three females; mean age: 53.4 ± 9.6 years; range: 38-64 years) who underwent emergent vascular intervention during lumbar spinal disc reconstructive surgery in our clinic were included in this retrospective study. RESULT: The left common iliac artery injury, the left common iliac artery and left common iliac vein injuries, bilateral common iliac artery and abdominal aortic injuries, and vena cava inferior injury with left common iliac vein and right common iliac vein injuries were detected in two, three, two, and two patients, respectively. In addition, 16 mm Dacron tube graft interposition and graft patch plasty were performed in one and two patients who had an abdominal aortic injury, respectively. Also, 8 mm polytetrafluoroethylene straight graft interposition was performed in two patients with left common iliac artery injury, and lateral wall repair was performed in other patients. Graft patch plasty and 8 mm polytetrafluoroethylene graft interposition were performed in one patient with vena cava inferior injury and left common iliac vein injury, respectively. Also, lateral wall repair was performed in other patients with venous injuries. Deep venous thrombosis had developed in three patients, and one patient of these had a pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSION: The incidence of vascular injury after the lumbar disc surgery is relatively low; however, the emergency vascular operation should be performed as soon as possible.

Protocolized approach saves the limb in peripheral arterial injury: A decade experience.

PURPOSE: Outcomes of peripheral arterial injury (PAI) depend on various factors, such as warm ischemia time and concomitant injuries. Suboptimal prehospital care may lead to delayed presentation, and a lack of dedicated trauma system may lead to poorer outcome. Also, there are few reports of these outcomes. The aim of this study was to review our experience of PAI management for more than a decade, and identify the predictors of limb loss in these patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database of trauma admissions at a level I trauma center from January 2008 to December 2019. Patients with acute upper limb arterial injuries or lower limb arterial injuries at or above the level of popliteal artery were included. Association of limb loss with ischemia time, mechanism of injury and concomitant injuries was studied using multiple logistic regressions. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA version 15.0 (Stata Corp LLC, Texas). RESULTS: Out of 716 patients with PAI, the majority (92%) were young males. Blunt trauma was the most common mechanism of injury. Median ischemia time was 4 h (interquartile range 2-7 h). Brachial artery (28%) was the most common injured vessel followed by popliteal artery (18%) and femoral artery (17%). Limb salvage rate was 78%. Out of them, 158 (22%) patients needed amputation, and 53 (7%) had undergone primary amputation. The majority (86%) of patients who required primary or secondary amputations had blunt trauma. On multivariate analysis, blunt trauma, ischemia time more than 6 h and concomitant venous, skeletal, and soft tissue injuries were associated with higher odds of amputation. CONCLUSION: Over all limb salvage rates was 78% in our series. Blunt mechanism of injury and associated skeletal and soft tissue injury, ischemia time more than 6 h portend a poor prognosis. Injury prevention, robust prehospital care, and rapid referral to specialized trauma center are few efficient measures, which can decrease the morbidity associated with vascular injury.

Vascular Trauma in the Extremities: Factors Associated with the Outcome and Assessment of Amputation Indexes.

Background: Traumatic vascular injury in the extremities may be associated with a low mortality rate but can lead to limb loss that seriously affects patients' functionality. Multiple scoring systems have been designed to evaluate the prognosis, but none are 100% predictive. The management of traumatic vascular injury remains challenging and depends mostly on the surgeon's experience. Objectives: We identified the risks associated with limb loss and further investigated the utility of current amputation indexes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 53 cases of traumatic vascular injury in the extremities at a tertiary referral medical center over the past ten years (January 2011-December 2020). The mangled extremity severity score (MESS), limb salvage index (LSI), and predictive salvage index (PSI) were used to assess the traumatized limbs. The injury characteristics and outcomes were evaluated using regression analysis. Results: The incidence of limb loss was 20.8% (n = 11), and open fractures were the most related factor. Extensive involvement of soft tissue, vascular injury combined with tibia or fibula fractures, initial shock status, and the amount of transfusion were associated with limb loss. Conclusions: Our study identified the risk factors and clinical utility of MESS, PSI, and LSI. While both LSI and PSI had acceptable diagnostic accuracy, amputation should be decided based on a variety of criteria and clinical features. Salvaging any limb that has not become apparently futile seems logical, yet the presence of certain factors may suggest a worse outcome.

Popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injuries in trauma study.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic popliteal vascular injuries are associated with the highest risk of limb loss of all peripheral vascular injuries. A method to evaluate the predictors of amputation is needed because previous scores could not be validated. In the present study, we aimed to provide a simplified scoring system (POPSAVEIT [popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injuries in trauma]) that could be used preoperatively to risk stratify patients with traumatic popliteal vascular injuries for amputation. METHODS: A review of patients sustaining traumatic popliteal artery injuries was performed. Patients requiring amputation were compared with those with limb salvage at the last follow-up. Of these patients, 80% were randomly assigned to a training group for score generation and 20% to a testing group for validation. Significant predictors of amputation (P < .1) on univariate analysis were included in a multivariable analysis. Those with P < .05 on multivariable analysis were assigned points according to the relative value of their odds ratios (ORs). Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated to determine low- vs high-risk scores. An area under the curve of >0.65 was considered adequate for validation. RESULTS: A total of 355 patients were included, with an overall amputation rate of 16%. On multivariate regression analysis, the risk factors independently associated with amputation in the final model were as follows: systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg (OR, 3.2; P = .027; 1 point), associated orthopedic injury (OR, 4.9; P = .014; 2 points), and a lack of preoperative pedal Doppler signals (OR, 5.5; P = .002; 2 points [or 1 point for a lack of palpable pedal pulses if Doppler signal data were unavailable]). A score of ≥3 was found to maximize the sensitivity (85%) and specificity (49%) for a high risk of amputation. The receiver operating characteristic curve for the validation group had an area under the curve of 0.750, meeting the threshold for score validation. CONCLUSIONS: The POPSAVEIT score provides a simple and practical method to effectively stratify patients preoperatively into low- and high-risk major amputation categories.

Improved outcomes of endovascular repair of thoracic aortic injuries at higher volume institutions.

BACKGROUND: The use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has significantly improved the ability to treat traumatic aortic injuries (tTEVAR). We sought to determine whether a greater center volume correlated with better outcomes. METHODS: Vascular Quality Initiative data of TEVAR (2011-2017) for trauma were used in the present analysis. Using the distribution of the annual case volume at the participating centers, the sample was stratified into three terciles. In-hospital mortality at high-volume centers (HVCs) and low-volume centers (LVCs) was compared after adjustment for risk factors established in our previous Vascular Quality Initiative-based risk model containing age, gender, renal impairment, left subclavian artery involvement, and select concomitant injuries. RESULTS: A total of 619 tTEVAR cases were studied across 74 centers. HVCs (n = 184 cases) had performed ≥4.9 cases annually and LVCs (n = 220 cases) had performed ≤2.4 cases annually. Both crude mortality (4.4% vs 8.6%; P = .22) and adjusted odds of mortality (odds ratio, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.18-1.09; P = .08) showed a trend toward better outcomes for tTEVAR performed at HVCs than at LVCs. The addition of center volume to our previous multivariate model significantly improved its discriminative ability (C-statistic, 0.90 vs 0.88; P = .02). The overall TEVAR volume (for all indications) was not associated with increased odds of mortality for tTEVAR (odds ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-1.20; P = .11), nor did it improve the model's discriminative ability. CONCLUSIONS: Higher volume centers showed improved perioperative mortality after tTEVAR. The thoracic aortic trauma volume was more predictive than the overall TEVAR volume, suggesting that technical expertise is not the driving factor. Stable patients might benefit from transfer to a higher volume center before repair.

Contemporary outcomes of traumatic popliteal artery injury repair from the popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injury in trauma study.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic popliteal artery injuries are associated with the greatest risk of limb loss of all peripheral vascular injuries, with amputation rates of 10% to 15%. The purpose of the present study was to examine the outcomes of patients who had undergone operative repair for traumatic popliteal arterial injuries and identify the factors independently associated with limb loss. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective review of all patients with traumatic popliteal artery injuries from 2007 to 2018 was performed. All the patients who had undergone operative repair of popliteal arterial injuries were included in the present analysis. The patients who had required a major lower extremity amputation (transtibial or transfemoral) were compared with those with successful limb salvage at the last follow-up. The significant predictors (P < .05) for amputation on univariate analysis were included in a multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 302 patients from 11 institutions were included in the present analysis. The median age was 32 years (interquartile range, 21-40 years), and 79% were men. The median follow-up was 72 days (interquartile range, 20-366 days). The overall major amputation rate was 13%. Primary repair had been performed in 17% of patients, patch repair in 2%, and interposition or bypass in 81%. One patient had undergone endovascular repair with stenting. The overall 1-year primary patency was 89%. Of the patients who had lost primary patency, 46% ultimately required major amputation. Early loss (within 30 days postoperatively) of primary patency was five times more frequent for the patients who had subsequently required amputation. On multivariate regression, the significant perioperative factors independently associated with major amputation included the initial POPSAVEIT (popliteal scoring assessment for vascular extremity injury in trauma) score, loss of primary patency, absence of detectable immediate postoperative pedal Doppler signals, and lack of postoperative antiplatelet therapy. Concomitant popliteal vein injury, popliteal injury location (P1, P2, P3), injury severity score, and tibial vs popliteal distal bypass target were not independently associated with amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Traumatic popliteal artery injuries are associated with a significant rate of major amputation. The preoperative POPSAVEIT score remained independently associated with amputation after including the perioperative factors. The lack of postoperative pedal Doppler signals and loss of primary patency were highly associated with major amputation. The use of postoperative antiplatelet therapy was inversely associated with amputation, perhaps indicating a protective effect.

Temporary intravascular shunt use improves early limb salvage after extremity vascular injury.

OBJECTIVE: The use of temporary intravascular shunts (TIVSs) allow for restoration of distal perfusion and reduce ischemic time in the setting of arterial injury. As a damage control method, adjunct shunts restore perfusion during treatment of life-threatening injuries, or when patients require evacuation to a higher level of care. Single-center reports and case series have demonstrate that TIVS use can extend the opportunity for limb salvage. However, few multi-institutional studies on the topic have been reported. The objective of the present study was to characterize TIVS use through a multi-institutional registry and define its effects on early limb salvage. METHODS: Data from the Prospective Observation Vascular Injury Treatment registry was analyzed. Civilian patients aged ≥18 years who had sustained an extremity vascular injury from September 2012 to November 2018 were included. Patients who had a TIVS used in the management of vascular injury were included in the TIVS group and those who had received treatment without a TIVS served as the control group. An unadjusted comparison of the groups was conducted to evaluate the differences in the baseline and outcome characteristics. Double robust estimation combining logistic regression with propensity score matching was used to evaluate the effect of TIVS usage on the primary end point of limb salvage. RESULTS: TIVS use was identified in 78 patients from 24 trauma centers. The control group included 613 patients. Unmatched analysis demonstrated that the TIVS group was more severely injured (mean ± standard deviation injury severity score, 18.83 ± 11.76 for TIVS vs 14.93 ± 10.46 for control; P = .002) and had more severely mangled extremities (mean ± standard deviation abbreviated injury scale, extremity, score 3.23 ± 0.80 for TIVS vs 2.95 ± 0.87 for control; P = .008). Logistic regression demonstrated that propensity-matched control patients had a three times greater likelihood of amputation compared with the TIVS patients (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-11.1; P = .026). Concomitant nerve injury and orthopedic fracture were associated with a greater risk of amputation. The median follow-up for the TIVS group was 12 days (interquartile range, 4-25 days) compared with 9 days (interquartile range, 4-18 days) for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first multicenter, matched-cohort study to characterize early limb salvage as a function of TIVS use in the setting of extremity vascular injury. Shunts expedite limb perfusion and resulted in lower rates of amputation during the early phase of care. The use of TIVS should be one part of a more aggressive approach to restore perfusion in the most injured patients and ischemic limbs.