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.

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.