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 Differences in Limiting Life-Sustaining Treatment in Trauma Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Differences in health care between racial and ethnic groups exist. The literature suggests that African Americans and Hispanics prefer more aggressive treatment at the end of life. The aim of this study is to assess racial and ethnic differences in limiting life-sustaining treatment (LLST) after trauma. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a 2-year (2013-2014) retrospective analysis of Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. Patients with age ≥16 and Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 were included. Outcome measures were the incidence and the predictors of LLST. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to control for confounding variables. RESULTS: A total of 97 024 patients were identified. Mean age was 49 (21) years, 68% were male, 68% were white, and 14% were Hispanic. The overall incidence of LLST was 7.2%. Based on race, LLST was selected as consistent with goals of care more often in white when compared to African American individuals who experience serious traumatic injury (8.0% vs 4.5%; P < .001). Based on ethnicity, LLST was more often selected in non-Hispanics (7.5% vs 5.2%, P < .001) when compared to Hispanics. On regression analysis, the independent predictors of LLST were white race (odds ratio [OR]: 2.7 [1.6-4.4], P = .02), non-Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 1.9 [1.4-4.6]; P = .03), severe head injury (OR: 1.7 [1.1-3.2]; P = .04), and ISS (OR: 3.1 [2.4-5.1]; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Differences exist in selecting LLST between different racial and ethnic groups in severe trauma. African Americans and Hispanics are less likely to select LLST when compared to whites and non-Hispanics. Further studies are required to analyze the factors associated with selecting LLST in African Americans and Hispanics.