Blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries: early or delayed repair--results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The traditional approach to stable blunt thoracic aortic injuries (TAI) is immediate repair, with delayed repair reserved for patients with major associated injuries. In recent years, there has been a trend toward delayed repair, even in low-risk patients. This study evaluates the current practices in the surgical community regarding the timing of aortic repair and its effects on outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational multicenter study sponsored by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. The study included patients with blunt TAI scheduled for aortic repair by open or endovascular procedure. Patients in extremis and those managed without aortic repair were excluded. The data collection included demographics, initial clinical presentation, Injury Severity Scores, type and site of aortic injury, type of aortic repair (open or endovascular repair), and time from injury to aortic repair. The study patients were divided into an early repair (< or = 24 hours) and delayed repair groups (> 24 hours). The outcome variables included survival, ventilator days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, blood transfusions, and complications. The outcomes in the two groups were compared with multivariate analysis after adjusting for age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, major associated injuries, and type of aortic repair. A second multivariate analysis compared outcomes between early and delayed repair, in patients with and patients without major associated injuries. RESULTS: There were 178 patients with TAI eligible for inclusion and analysis, 109 (61.2%) of which underwent early repair and 69 (38.8%) delayed repair. The two groups had similar epidemiologic, injury severity, and type of repair characteristics. The adjusted mortality was significantly higher in the early repair group (adjusted OR [95% CI] 7.78 [1.69-35.70], adjusted p value = 0.008). The adjusted complication rate was similar in the two groups. However, delayed repair was associated with significantly longer ICU and hospital lengths of stay. Analysis of the 108 patients without major associated injuries, adjusting for age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, and type of aortic repair, showed that in early repair there was a trend toward higher mortality rate (adjusted OR 9.08 [0.88-93.78], adjusted p value = 0.064) but a significantly lower complication rate (adjusted OR 0.4 [0.18-0.96], adjusted p value 0.040) and shorter ICU stay (adjusted p value = 0.021) than the delayed repair group. A similar analysis of the 68 patients with major associated injuries, showed a strong trend toward higher mortality in the early repair group (adjusted OR 9.39 [0.93-95.18], adjusted p value = 0.058). The complication rate was similar in both groups (adjusted p value = 0.239). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed repair of stable blunt TAI is associated with improved survival, irrespective of the presence or not of major associated injuries. However, delayed repair is associated with a longer length of ICU stay and in the group of patients with no major associated injuries a significantly higher complication rate.

Diagnosis and treatment of blunt thoracic aortic injuries: changing perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis and management of blunt thoracic aortic injuries has undergone many significant changes over the last decade. The present study compares clinical practices and results between an earlier prospective multicenter study by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma completed in 1997 (AAST1) and a new similar study completed in 2007 (AAST2). METHODS: The AAST1 study included 274 patients from 50 participating centers over a period of 30 months. The AAST2 study included 193 patients from 18 centers, over a period of 26 months. The comparisons between the two studies included the method of definitive diagnosis of the aortic injury [computed tomography (CT) scan, aortography, transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) or magnetic resonance imaging], the method of definitive aortic repair (open repair vs. endovascular repair, clamp and sew vs. bypass techniques), the time from injury to procedure (early vs. delayed repair), and outcomes (survival, procedure-related paraplegia, other complications). RESULTS: There was a major shift of the method of definitive diagnosis of the aortic injury, from aortography in the AAST1 to CT scan in AAST2, and a nearly complete elimination of aortography and TEE in the AAST2 study. In the AAST2 study the diagnosis was made by CT scan in 93.3%, aortography in 8.3%, and TEE in 1.0% of patients when compared with 34.8%, 87.0%, and 11.9%, respectively, in the AAST1 study (p < 0.001). The mean time from injury to aortic repair increased from 16.5 hours in the AAST1 study to 54.6 hours in the AAST2 study (p < 0.001). In the AAST1 study, all patients were managed with open repair, whereas in the AAST2 study only 35.2% were managed with open repair and the remaining 64.8% were managed with endovascular stent-grafts. In the patients managed with open repair, the use of bypass techniques increased from 64.7% to 83.8%. The overall mortality, excluding patients in extremis, decreased significantly from 22.0% to 13.0% (p = 0.02). Also, the incidence of procedure-related paraplegia in patients with planned operation, decreased from 8.7% to 1.6% (p = 0.001). However, the incidence of early graft-related complications increased from 0.5% in the AAST1 to 18.4% in the AAST2 study. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison between the two AAST studies in 1997 and 2007 showed a major shift in the diagnosis of the aortic injury, with the widespread use of CT scan and the almost complete elimination of aortography and TEE. The concept of delayed definitive repair has gained wide acceptance. Endovascular repair has replaced open repair to a great extent. These changes have resulted in a major reduction of mortality and procedure-related paraplegia but also a significant increase of early graft-related complications.

Acute management of hemodynamically unstable pelvic trauma patients: time for a change? Multicenter review of recent practice.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhage-related mortality (HRM) associated with pelvic fractures continues to challenge trauma care. This study describes the management and outcome of hemodynamically unstable patients with a pelvic fracture, with emphasis on primary intervention for hemorrhage control and HRM. METHODS: Blunt trauma patients [Injury Severity Score (ISS) >or=16] with a major pelvic fracture (Abbreviated Injury Score, pelvis >or=3) and hemodynamic instability [admission systolic blood pressure (SBP) or=6 units of packed red blood cells (PRBCs)/24 hours) were included into a 48-month (ending in December 2003) multicenter retrospective study of 11 major trauma centers. Data are presented as the mean +/- SD. RESULTS: A total of 217 patients (mean age 41 +/- 19 years, 71% male, ISS 42 +/- 16) were studied. The admission SBP was 96 +/- 37 mmHg and the Glascow Coma Scale (GCS) 11 +/- 5. Patients received 4 +/- 2 liters of fluids including 4 +/- 4 units of PRBCs in the emergency room (ER). In total, 69 (32%) patients died, among whom the HRM was 19%; 29% of the deaths were due to pelvic bleeding. Altogether, 120 of the 217 (55%) patients underwent focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) or diagnostic peritoneal aspiration (DPA) and diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL); 60 of the 217 (28%) patients were found to have pelvic binding in the ER. In all, 53 of 109 (49%) patients had no bleeding noted at laparotomy, 26 of 106 (25%) had no abdominal findings, and 15 of 53 (28%) had had no prior abdominal investigation (FAST/DPL/computed tomography). Angiography was positive in 48 of 58 (83%) patients. The HRM was highest in patients with laparotomy as the primary intervention (29%) followed by the angiography group (18%), the combined laparotomy/pelvic fixation group (16%), and the pelvic fixation-only group (10%). CONCLUSION: HRM associated with major pelvic trauma is unacceptably high especially in the laparotomy group. Hence, nontherapeutic laparotomy must be avoided, concentrating instead on arresting pelvic hemorrhage. Standards of care must be implemented and abided by.

Operative repair or endovascular stent graft in blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries: results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study is to assess the early efficacy and safety of endovascular stent grafts (SGs) in traumatic thoracic aortic injuries and compare outcomes with the standard operative repair (OR). PATIENTS: Prospective, multicenter study. Data for the following were collected: age, blood pressure, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) at admission, type of aortic injury, injury severity score, abbreviate injury scale (AIS), transfusions, survival, ventilator days, complications, and intensive care unit and hospital days. The outcomes between the two groups (open repair or SG) were compared, adjusting for presence of critical extrathoracic trauma (head, abdomen, or extremity AIS >3), GCS score 55 years. Separate multivariable analysis was performed, one for patients without and one for patients with associated critical extrathoracic injuries (head, abdomen, or extremity AIS >3), to compare the outcomes of the two therapeutic modalities adjusting for hypotension, GCS score 55 years. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three patients met the criteria for inclusion. Overall, 125 patients (64.9%) were selected for SG and 68 (35.2%) for OR. SG was selected in 71.6% of the 74 patients with major extrathoracic injuries and in 60.0% of the 115 patients with no major extrathoracic injuries. SG patients were significantly older than OR patients. Overall, 25 patients in the SG group (20.0%) developed 32 device-related complications. There were 18 endoleaks (14.4%), 6 of which needed open repair. Procedure-related paraplegia developed in 2.9% in the OR and 0.8% in the SG groups (p = 0.28). Multivariable analysis adjusting for severe extrathoracic injuries, hypotension, GCS, and age, showed that the SG group had a significantly lower mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 8.42; 95% CI: [2.76-25.69]; adjusted p value <0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (adjusted mean difference: 4.98; 95% CI: [0.14-9.82]; adjusted p value = 0.046) than the OR group. Among the 115 patients without major extrathoracic injuries, higher mortality and higher transfusion requirements were also found in the OR group (adjusted odds ratio for mortality: 13.08; 95% CI [2.53-67.53], adjusted p value = 0.002 and adjusted mean difference in transfusion units: 4.45; 95% CI [1.39-7.51]; adjusted p value = 0.004). Among the 74 patients with major extrathoracic injuries, significantly higher mortality and pneumonia rate were found in the OR group (adjusted p values 0.04 and 0.03, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that centers with high volume of endovascular procedures had significantly fewer systemic complications (adjusted p value 0.001), fewer local complications (adjusted p value p = 0.033), and shorter hospital lengths of stay (adjusted p value 0.005) than low-volume centers. CONCLUSIONS: Most surgeons select SG for traumatic thoracic aortic ruptures, irrespective of associated injuries, injury severity, and age. SG is associated with significantly lower mortality and fewer blood transfusions, but there is a considerable risk of serious device-related complications. There is a major and urgent need for improvement of the available endovascular devices.