Open vs Endovascular Treatment of Traumatic Peripheral Arterial Injury: Propensity Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Arterial injuries occur in the setting of blunt and penetrating trauma. Despite increasing use, there remains a paucity of data comparing long-term outcomes of endovascular vs open repair management of these injuries. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes and readmission rates of open vs endovascular repair of traumatic arterial injuries. STUDY DESIGN: The National Readmission Database (2011-2014) was queried for all adult (age ≥ 18 y) patients presenting with peripheral arterial (axillary, brachial, femoral, and popliteal) injuries. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on intervention: open vs endovascular approach. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) was performed. Outcomes measures were complications, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and cost of readmission. RESULTS: A matched cohort of 786 patients was obtained (endovascular: 262, open: 524). Mean age was 45 ± 17 years, and 79% were males. Median LOS was 4 (range 2-6) days for the endovascular group vs 3 (range 2-5) days for the open group (p < 0.01). The endovascular group had higher rates of seroma (4% vs 2%; p = 0.04) and arterial thrombosis (13% vs 7%; p < 0.01) during index hospitalization. Patients who underwent endovascular repair had higher 30-day readmission (11% vs 7%; p = 0.03) and a higher 30-day open-reoperation rate (6% vs 2%; p < 0.01). On subanalysis of the patients who were readmitted, the median cost of each readmission was higher in the endovascular group $47,000 ($27,202-$56,763) compared with $21,000 ($11,889-$43,503) in the open group. CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair for peripheral arterial injuries was associated with higher rates of in-hospital complications, readmissions, and costs. As this new technology continues to undergo refinement, a thorough re-evaluation of its indications, risks, and benefits is warranted.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Frail Geriatric Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Frailty in geriatric trauma patients is commonly associated with adverse outcomes. Racial disparities in geriatric trauma patients are previously described in the literature. We aimed to assess whether race and ethnicity influence outcomes in frail geriatric trauma patients. METHODS: We performed a 1-year (2017) analysis of TQIP including all geriatric (age ≥ 65 years) trauma patients. The frailty index was calculated using 11-variables and a cutoff limit of 0.27 was defined for frail status. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to control for demographics, insurance status, injury parameters, vital signs, and ICU and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: We included 41,111 frail geriatric trauma patients. In terms of race, among frail geriatric trauma patients, 35,376 were Whites and 2916 were African Americans; in terms of ethnicity, 37,122 were Non-Hispanics and 2184 were Hispanics. On regression analysis, the White race was associated with higher odds of mortality (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.2-2.0; p < 0.01) and in-hospital complications (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.1-1.9; p < 0.01). White patients were more likely to be discharged to SNF (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; p = 0.03) and less likely to be discharged home (p = 0.04) compared to African Americans. Non-Hispanics were more likely to be discharged to SNF (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.5; p < 0.01) and less likely to be discharged home (p < 0.01) as compared to Hispanics. No significant difference in in-hospital mortality was seen between Hispanics and Non-Hispanics. CONCLUSION: Race and ethnicity influence outcomes in frail geriatric trauma patients. These disparities exist regardless of age, gender, injury severity, and insurance status. Further studies are needed to highlight disparities by race and ethnicity and to identify potentially modifiable risk factors in the geriatric trauma population.