Characteristics and Validation of Pediatric Extremity Vascular Trauma in Dedicated Pediatric and Adult Trauma Centers: A Scoping Review Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Pediatric extremity vascular injuries constitute a rare yet serious entity that can lead to serious complications especially if left untreated or become late diagnosed. In our scoping review, we sought to evaluate different characteristics and outcomes of pediatric and combined adult trauma centers (ATCs) in the management of pediatric extremity vascular injury. METHODS: We sought to analyze various characteristics and parameters that differentiate a dedicated pediatric and a combined pediatric ATC in terms of effectiveness and quality of care in the acute setting and to describe special features and characteristics of an acute vascular disease that constitute pediatric population unique from the aspect of diagnosis and management. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping reviews guidelines to conduct the study. RESULTS: The search identified 8,815 records in title using MeSH terms from PubMed/MEDLINE database among which 12 studies reporting a total of 2,124 pediatric patients with vascular extremity injuries were included for analysis. Incidence of pediatric extremity vascular injury was 0.5%. Upper extremity injuries were the most frequent presenting in 63% of cases followed by lower extremity injuries in 37% of cases. Blunt injuries were marginally more common than penetrating injuries (58% vs. 42%). In-hospital mortality and morbidity ranged from 13.2% to 0.9% and 13% to 30%, respectively. Limb-salvage rates were high, ranging from 92% to 99%. Furthermore, there are no clearly defined clinical guidelines involving the mode of imaging and diagnosis, the surgical specialties involved and the competency of nursing or medical staff overall. CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated children trauma centers theoretically represent the optimal path for acute pediatric trauma admission, especially in complex trauma necessitating vascular reconstruction. However, in the current setting of rapidly increasing health costs and economic crisis worldwide, regional or resource-related factors make this option rather unavailable. In any case, it is imperative the clinicians have a high index of suspicion when confronting with these types of injuries because early diagnosis is highly related with reduced morbidity and superior outcomes.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular therapy versus open surgical repair for the traumatic lower extremity arterial injury.

OBJECTIVE: For traumatic lower extremity artery injury, it is unclear whether it is better to perform endovascular therapy (ET) or open surgical repair (OSR). This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of ET versus OSR for traumatic lower extremity artery injury. METHODS: The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Databases were searched for studies. Cohort studies and case series reporting outcomes of ET or OSR were eligible for inclusion. Robins-I tool and an 18-item tool were used to assess the risk of bias. The primary outcome was amputation. The secondary outcomes included fasciotomy or compartment syndrome, mortality, length of stay and lower extremity nerve injury. We used the random effects model to calculate pooled estimates. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies with low or moderate risk of bias were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that patients who underwent ET had a significantly decreased risk of major amputation (OR = 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.85; I2=34%) and fasciotomy or compartment syndrome (OR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.20-0.50, I2 = 14%) than patients who underwent OSR. No significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding all-cause mortality (OR = 1.11, 95% CI 0.75-1.64, I2 = 31%). Patients with ET repair had a shorter length of stay than patients with OSR repair (MD=-5.06, 95% CI -6.76 to -3.36, I2 = 65%). Intraoperative nerve injury was just reported in OSR patients with a pooled incidence of 15% (95% CI 6%-27%). CONCLUSION: Endovascular therapy may represent a better choice for patients with traumatic lower extremity arterial injury, because it can provide lower risks of amputation, fasciotomy or compartment syndrome, and nerve injury, as well as shorter length of stay.

Association of rurality with short-term outcomes of peripheral vascular trauma.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral vascular trauma is a major contributing factor to long-term disability and mortality among patients with traumatic injuries. However, an analysis focusing on individuals at a high risk of experiencing limb loss due to rural and urban peripheral vascular trauma is lacking. METHOD: This was a retrospective analysis of the 2016 to 2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients (≥18 years) undergoing open or endovascular procedures after admission for peripheral vascular trauma were identified using the 2016 to 2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients from rural regions were considered Rural, whereas the remainder comprised Urban. The primary outcome of the study was primary amputation. Multivariable regression models were developed to evaluate rurality with outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 29,083 patients, 4,486 (15.6%) were Rural. Rural were older (41 [28-59] vs 37 [27-54] years, P < .001), with a similar distribution of female sex (23.0 vs 21.3%, P = .09) and transfers from other facilities (2.8 vs 2.5%, P = .34). After adjustment, Rural status was not associated with the odds of mortality (P = .82), with urban as reference. Rural status was, however, associated with greater odds of limb amputation (adjusted odds ratio 1.85, 95% confidence interval 1.47-2.32) and reduced index hospitalization cost by $7,100 (95% confidence interval $3,500-10,800). Additionally, compared to patients from urban locations, rurality was associated with similar odds of non-home discharge and 30-day readmission. Over the study period, the marginal effect of rurality on the risk-adjusted rates of amputation significantly increased (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo peripheral vascular trauma management in rural areas appear to increasingly exhibit a higher likelihood of amputation, with lower incremental costs and a lower risk of 30-day readmission. These findings underscore disparities in access to optimal trauma vascular care as well as limited resources in rural regions.

Surgeon volume and outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) at high-volume hospitals has previously been associated with lower perioperative mortality, but the impact of annual surgeon volume on outcomes following TEVAR for BTAI remains unknown. METHODS: We analyzed Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data from patients with BTAI that underwent TEVAR between 2013 and 2023. Annual surgeon volumes were computed as the number of TEVARs (for any pathology) performed over a 1-year period preceding each procedure and were further categorized into quintiles. Surgeons in the first volume quintile were categorized as low volume (LV), the highest quintile as high volume (HV), and the middle three quintiles as medium volume (MV). TEVAR procedures performed by surgeons with less than 1-year enrollment in the VQI were excluded. Using multilevel logistic regression models, we evaluated associations between surgeon volume and perioperative outcomes, accounting for annual center volumes and adjusting for potential confounders, including aortic injury grade and severity of coexisting injuries. Multilevel models accounted for the nested clustering of patients and surgeons within the same center. Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with grade IV BTAI was performed. RESULTS: We studied 1321 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI (28% by LV surgeons [0-1 procedures per year], 52% by MV surgeons [2-8 procedures per year], 20% by HV surgeons [≥9 procedures per year]). With higher surgeon volume, TEVAR was delayed more (in <4 hours: LV: 68%, MV: 54%, HV: 46%; P < .001; elective (>24 hours): LV: 5.1%; MV: 8.9%: HV: 14%), heparin administered more (LV: 80%, MV: 81%, HV: 87%; P = .007), perioperative mortality appears lower (LV: 11%, MV: 7.3%, HV: 6.5%; P = .095), and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke was lower (LV: 6.5%, MV: 3.6%, HV: 1.5%; P = .006). After adjustment, compared with LV surgeons, higher volume surgeons had lower odds of perioperative mortality (MV: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.97; P = .039; HV: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16-1.22; P = .12; MV/HV: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96; P = .038) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke (MV: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P = .011; HV: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61; P = .008). Sensitivity analysis found lower adjusted odds for perioperative mortality (although not significant) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke for higher volume surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI, higher surgeon volume is independently associated with lower perioperative mortality and postoperative stroke, regardless of hospital volume. Future studies could elucidate if TEVAR for non-ruptured BTAI might be delayed and allow stabilization, heparinization, and involvement of a higher TEVAR volume surgeon.

Initial Outcomes of the Gore TAG Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis for Endovascular Repair of Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular repair of blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) has dramatically reduced the morbidity and mortality of intervention. Injuries requiring zone 2 coverage of the aorta traditionally require left subclavian artery (LSA) sacrifice or open revascularization. Furthermore, these injuries are associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality and long-term morbidity. Here we report 1-year outcomes of total endovascular repair of BTAI with the GORE® TAG® Thoracic Branch Endoprosthesis for LSA preservation. METHODS: Across 34 investigative sites, 9 patients with BTAI requiring LSA coverage were enrolled in a nonrandomized, prospective study of a single-branched aortic endograft. The thoracic branch endoprosthesis device allows for graft placement proximal to the LSA and incorporates a single side branch for LSA perfusion. RESULTS: This initial cohort included 8 male and 1 female patient with a median age of 43 (22, 76) and 12 months of follow-up. Five total years of follow-up are planned. All participants had grade 3 BTAI. All procedures took place between 2018 and 2019. The median injury severity score was 2 (0, 66). The median procedure time was 109 min (78, 162). All aortic injuries were repaired under general anesthesia and with heparinization. A spinal drain was used in one patient. Post-deployment balloon angioplasty was conducted in one case at the distal landing zone. There was one asymptomatic LSA branch occlusion 6 months after repair. It was attributed to the purposeful proximal deployment of the branch stent to accommodate an early vertebral takeoff. The occlusion did not require revascularization. There were no strokes, mortalities, or aortic adverse events (migration, endoleak, native aortic expansion, dissection, or thrombosis) through 12 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Initial cohort outcomes suggest that endovascular repair of zone 2 BTAI is feasible and has favorable outcomes using the thoracic branch device with LSA preservation. Additional cases and longer-term follow-up are required for a definitive assessment of the device's safety and durability in traumatic aortic injuries.

Outcomes of Endovascular and Open Surgical Therapy for Popliteal Artery Injury.

BACKGROUND: Popliteal arterial injury carries an appreciable risk of limb loss and, despite advances in stent and stent-graft technology, endovascular therapy for popliteal arterial trauma is infrequently used when compared with traditional open repair. Thus, this study aims to assess outcomes of endovascular management (EM) with open surgery (OS) as a historical reference. METHODS: An electronic search was performed (from January 2010 until June 2023) using multiple databases. Initial records were screened against eligibility criteria. Next, the full-text manuscript of articles that passed the title and abstract assessment was reviewed for relevancy of data points. Data from articles passing the inclusion criteria were extracted and tabulated. Comparative analysis was completed by performing chi-square tests and 2-sampled t-tests (Welch's). RESULTS: The 24 selected studies described 864 patients (96 EM; 768 OS). In the endovascular group, patients underwent procedures primarily for blunt trauma using covered, self-expanding stents, resulting in universal technical success and patency. Patients had an average length of stay of 7.99 ± 7.5 days and follow-up time of 33.0 ± 7.0 months, with 21% undergoing fasciotomies, 6% undergoing amputation, and 4% having pseudoaneurysms. Patients in the OS group were evenly divided between blunt and penetrating trauma, chiefly undergoing vein graft interposition and exhibiting fasciotomy and amputation rates of 66% and 24%, respectively. Patients had an average length of stay of 5.66 ± 4.6 days and a 96% survival rate at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence sheds light on the nature of treatment offered by EM and OS treatment and suggests EM is associated with several important positive outcomes. Although it is difficult to directly compare endovascular and open surgical techniques, the data with respect to open surgical management of popliteal artery trauma can still provide a powerful frame of reference for the outcomes of EM to date. However, this claim is weak due to the little published data for EM of popliteal trauma, publication bias accompanying the published studies, and general, selection bias. Additional prospective data are necessary to define patients who specifically benefit from endovascular repair.

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.

A 12-year experience in the management of blunt thoracic aortic injury in Otautahi Christchurch.

BACKGROUND: Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) is associated with a high mortality and is the second most common cause of death from trauma. The approach to major trauma, imaging technology and advancement in endovascular therapy have revolutionised the management of BTAI. Endovascular therapy has now become the gold standard technique replacing surgery with its high mortality and morbidity in unstable patients. We aim to assess the outcomes following management of BTAI. METHOD: This is a retrospective study of all patients with BTAI between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2022. Data were obtained from electronic health records. The grading of BTAI severity was done based on the Society of Vascular Surgery (SVS) Criteria. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included in the study analysis. The most common cause of BTAI was due to high-speed motor vehicle accidents (MVA) (36 patients, 72%). Grade 1 and grade 3 BTAI injuries were mostly encountered in 40% and 30% of the study cohort, respectively. Twenty-three patients (46%) underwent thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). There was no secondary aortic re-intervention, conversion to open surgery or aortic-related deaths at 30 days or at most recent follow-up. CONCLUSION: Management of BTAI in our centre compares well with currently published studies. Long-term studies are warranted to guide clinicians in areas of controversy in BTAI management.

Nonoperative Management for Low-Grade Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the standard of care for the treatment of blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) requiring intervention. Data suggest that low-grade BTAI (grade I [intimal tears] or grade II [intramural hematoma]) will resolve spontaneously if treated with nonoperative management (NOM) alone. There has been no comparison specifically between the use of NOM vs TEVAR for low-grade BTAI. We hypothesize that these low-grade injuries can be safely managed with NOM alone. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of all patients with a low-grade BTAI in the Aortic Trauma Foundation Registry from 2016 to 2021 was performed. The study population was 1 primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included complications, ICU length of stay, and ventilator days. RESULTS: A total of 880 patients with BTAI were enrolled. Of the 269 patients with low-grade BTAI, 218 (81%) were treated with NOM alone (81% grade I, 19% grade II), whereas 51 (19%) underwent a TEVAR (20% grade I, 80% grade II). There was no difference in demographic or mechanism of injury in patients with low-grade BTAI who underwent NOM vs TEVAR. There was a difference in mortality between NOM alone and TEVAR (8% vs 18%, p = 0.009). Aortic-related mortality was 0.5% in the NOM group and 4% in the TEVAR group (p = 0.06). Hospital and ICU length of stay and ventilator days were not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: NOM alone is safe and appropriate management for low-grade BTAI, with lower mortality and decreased rates of complication when compared with routine initial TEVAR.

Contemporary Review of Traumatic Axillary and Subclavian Artery Injuries at an Urban Level One Trauma Center.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic axillary and subclavian artery injuries are uncommon. Limited data are available regarding patient and injury characteristics, as well as management strategies and outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was performed on patients presenting to University of Louisville Hospital, an urban Level One Trauma Center, with traumatic axillary and subclavian artery injuries from 2015-2021. Patients were identified using University of Louisville trauma, radiology, and billing database searches based on ICD9/10 codes for axillary and subclavian artery injuries. Descriptive statistics are expressed as frequencies and percentages. Comparisons were performed using Fisher's Exact and Chi-squared tests. RESULTS: Forty-four patients with traumatic axillary-subclavian arterial injuries were identified for analysis. Blunt and penetrating trauma were equally represented (n = 22 for both). A variety of injury types were seen, including minimal/intimal injury, laceration, pseudoaneurysm, transection, occlusion, and arteriovenous fistula. Management strategies were also variable, including non-operative, endovascular, planned hybrid, open, and endovascular converted to open. In operative patients, revascularization technical success was high (n = 31, 97%) with low likelihood of thrombosis (n = 2, 6%) and no infections. Among all patients, amputation rate was 5% (n = 2) and mortality rate was 9% (n = 3). Regarding arterial involvement, blunt injury was more likely to affect the subclavian (n = 18) than the axillary artery (n = 6) (P = .04). No significant difference was seen in brachial plexus injury based on artery involved (subclavian = 9 vs axillary = 11, P = .14) or mechanism (blunt = 6 vs penetrating = 11, P = .22). Non-operative management was more likely with subclavian artery injury (n = 11) vs axillary artery injury (n = 1) (P = .008). There was no significant difference between decision for non-operative (blunt = 9, penetrating = 3) vs operative (blunt = 13, penetrating = 19) management based on mechanism (P = .09). Transection injury was associated with an open repair strategy (endovascular/hybrid = 1, open/endovascular to open conversion = 11, P = .0003). Of the three patients requiring endovascular to open conversion, two required amputation, which were the only two patients in the study undergoing amputation. CONCLUSIONS: Both open and endovascular/hybrid strategies are useful when treating traumatic axillary and subclavian artery injuries and are associated with high likelihood of revascularization technical success, with low rates of thrombosis or infection, when treated promptly at a trauma center with vascular specialists available. Transection injuries were most often treated with open revascularization. Patients undergoing amputation had blunt transection injuries to the subclavian artery and underwent endovascular to open conversion after failed attempts at endovascular revascularization.

Lessons Learned From Treating 114 Inferior Vena Cava Injuries at a Limited Resources Environment - A Single Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: The inferior vena cava is the most frequently injured vascular structure in penetrating abdominal trauma. We aimed to review inferior vena cava injury cases treated at a limited resources facility and to discuss the surgical management for such injures. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients with inferior vena cava injuries who were treated at a single center between January 2011 and January 2020. Data pertaining to the following were assessed: demographic parameters, hypovolemic shock at admission, the distance that the patient had to be transported to reach the hospital, affected anatomical segment, treatment, concomitant injuries, complications, and mortality. Non-parametric data were analyzed using Fisher's exact, Chi-square, Mann-Whitney, or Kruskal-Wallis test, as applicable. The Student's t-test was used to assess parametric data. Moreover, multiple logistic regression analyses (including data of possible death-related variables) were performed. Statistical significance was set at P <0.05. RESULTS: Among 114 patients with inferior vena cava injuries, 90.4% were male, and the majority were aged 20-29 years. Penetrating injuries accounted for 98.2% of the injuries, and the infrarenal segment was affected in 52.7% of the patients. Suturing was perfomed in 69.5% and cava ligation in 29.5% of the patients, and 1 patient with retrohepatic vena cava injury was managed non-operatively. The overall mortality was 52.6% with no case of compartment syndrome in the limbs. A total of 7.9% of the patients died during surgery. CONCLUSION: The inferior vena cava is often injured by penetrating mechanisms, and the most frequently affected segment was the infrarenal segment. A higher probability of death was not associated with injury to a specific anatomical segment. Additionally, cava ligation was not related to an increased probability of compartment syndrome in the leg; therefore, prophylactic fasciotomy was not supported.

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.

Nationwide utilization of cardiopulmonary bypass in cardiothoracic trauma: A retrospective analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma requires that all level I trauma centers have cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) capabilities immediately available. Despite this mandate, there are limited data on the utilization and clinical outcomes among trauma patients requiring CPB in the management of injuries. The aim of this study was to evaluate the current use of CPB in the care of trauma patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank from 2010 to 2015. Adult patients sustaining cardiothoracic injuries who underwent surgical repair within the first 24 hours of admission were included. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes (in-hospital mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, and complications) between patients who underwent CPB within the first 24 hours of admission and those with similar injuries who did not receive CPB. RESULTS: A total of 28,481 patients who met the inclusion criteria were identified, of whom 319 underwent CPB. Three-hundred three CPB patients were matched to 895 comparison patients who did not undergo CPB. Overall in-hospital mortality was 35%. Patients who were not treated with CPB had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared with those treated with CBP (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-2.12; p = 0.003); however, complications were significantly lower in those who did not receive CPB (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.86; p = 0.003). Hospital LOS (non-CPB: mean, 13.4 ± 16.3 days; CPB: mean, 14.7 ± 15.1 days; p = 0.23) and intensive care unit LOS (non-CPB: mean, 9.9 ± 10.7 days; CPB: mean, 10.1 ± 9.7 days; p = 0.08) did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: The use of CPB in the initial management of select cardiothoracic injuries is associated with a survival benefit. Further investigation is required to delineate which specific injuries would benefit the most from the use of CPB. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level IV.

High Mortality and Venous Thromboembolism Risk Following Major Penetrating Abdominal Venous Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Penetrating injuries to the inferior vena cava and/or iliac veins are a source of hemorrhage but may also predispose patients to venous thromboembolism (VTE). We sought to determine the relationship between iliocaval injury, VTE and mortality. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for penetrating abdominal trauma from 2015-2017. Univariate analyses compared baseline characteristics and outcomes based on presence of iliocaval injury. Multivariable analyses determined the effect of iliocaval injury on VTE and mortality. RESULTS: Of 9,974 patients with penetrating abdominal trauma, 329 had iliocaval injury (3.3%). Iliocaval injury patients were more likely to have a firearm mechanism (83% vs. 43%, P < 0.001), concurrent head (P = 0.036), spinal cord (P < 0.001), and pelvic injuries (P < 0.001), and higher total injury severity score (median 20 vs. 8.0, P < 0.001). They were more likely to undergo 24-hr hemorrhage control surgery (69% vs. 17%, P < 0.001), but less likely to receive VTE chemoprophylaxis during admission (64% vs. 68%, P = 0.04). Of patients undergoing iliocaval surgery, 64% underwent repair, 26% ligation, and 10% unknown. Iliocaval injury patients had higher rates of VTE (12% vs. 2%), 24-hr mortality (23% vs. 2.0%) and in-hospital mortality (33% vs. 3.4%) (P < 0.001 for all). VTE rates were similar following repair (14%) and ligation (17%). Iliocaval injury patients also had higher rates of cardiac complications (10.3% vs. 1.4%), acute kidney injury (8.2% vs. 1.3%), extremity compartment syndrome (4.0 vs. 0.2%), and unplanned return to OR (7.9% vs. 2.5%) (P < 0.001 for all). In multivariable analyses, iliocaval injury was independently associated with risk of VTE (OR 2.12; 95% CI, 1.29-3.48; P = 0.003), and in-hospital mortality (OR = 9.61; 95% CI, 4.96-18.64; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Iliocaval injuries occur in <5% of penetrating abdominal trauma but are associated with more severe injury patterns and high mortality rates. Regardless of repair type, survivors should be considered high risk for developing VTE.

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.

Blunt cerebrovascular injuries: Outcomes from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma PROspective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment (PROOVIT) multicenter registry.

BACKGROUND: Administering antithrombotics (AT) to the multiply injured patient with blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) requires a thoughtful assessment of the risk of stroke and death associated with nontreatment. Large, multicenter analysis of outcomes stratified by injury grade and vessel injured is needed to inform future recommendations. METHODS: Nine hundred and seventy-one BCVIs were identified from the PROspective Vascular Injury Treatment registry in this retrospective analysis. Using multivariate analysis, we identified predictors of BCVI-related stroke and death. We then stratified these risks by injury grade and vessel injured. We compared the risk of adverse outcomes in the nontreatment group with those treated with antiplatelet agents and/or anticoagulants. RESULTS: Stroke was identified in 7% of cases. Overall mortality was 12%. Both increased with increasing BCVI grade. Treatment with ATs was associated with lower mortality and was not significantly affected by the choice of agent. Withholding ATs was associated with an increased risk of stroke and/or death across all subgroups (Grade I/II: odds ratio [OR], 4.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.48-8.75; Grade III: OR, 7.0; 95% CI, 2.01-24.5; Grade IV: OR, 4.43; 95% CI, 1.76-11.1) even after controlling for covariates. Predictors of death included more severe trauma, Grade IV injury, and the occurrence of stroke. Arterial occlusion, hypotension, and endovascular intervention were significant predictors of stroke. Patients that experienced a BCVI-related stroke were at a 4.2× increased risk of death. The data set lacked the granularity necessary to evaluate AT timing or dosing regimen, which limited further analysis of stroke prevention strategies. CONCLUSION: Stroke and death remain significant risks for all BCVI grades regardless of the vessel injured. Antithrombotics represent the only management strategy that is consistently associated with a lower incidence of stroke and death in all BCVI categories. In the multi-injured BCVI patient with a high risk of bleeding on anticoagulation, antiplatelet agents are an efficacious alternative. Given the 40% mortality rate in patients who survived their initial trauma and developed a BCVI-related stroke, nontreatment may no longer be a viable option. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological III; Therapeutic IV.

Increased Use of Prehospital Tourniquet and Patient Survival: Los Angeles Countywide Study.

BACKGROUND: Recent trends in prehospital tourniquet use remain underreported. In addition, the impact of prehospital tourniquet use on patient survival has not been evaluated in a population-level study. We hypothesized that prehospital tourniquets were used more frequently in Los Angeles County and their use was associated with improved patient survival. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study using a database maintained by the Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency. We included patients who sustained extremity vascular injuries between October 2015 and July 2019. Patients were divided into the following study groups: prehospital tourniquet and no-tourniquet group. Our primary end point was in-hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included 4- and 24-hour transfusion requirements and delayed amputation. RESULTS: A total of 944 patients met our inclusion criteria. Of those, 97 patients (10.3%) had prehospital tourniquets placed. The rate of tourniquet use increased linearly throughout our study period (goodness of fit, p = 0.014). In multivariable analysis, prehospital tourniquet use was significantly associated with improved mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.32; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.85; p = 0.032). Similarly, transfusion requirements were significantly lower within 4 hours (regression coefficient -547.76; 95% CI, -762.73 to -283.49; p < 0.001) and 24 hours (regression coefficient -1,389.82; 95% CI, -1,824.88 to -920.97; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in delayed amputation rates (adjusted odds ratio 1.07; 95% CI, 0.21 to 10.88; p < 0.097). CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital tourniquet use has been on the rise in Los Angeles County. Our results suggest that the use of prehospital tourniquets for extremity vascular injuries is associated with improved patient survival and decreased blood transfusion requirements, without an increase in delayed amputations.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Ligation Versus Repair of Inferior Vena Cava Injuries.

OBJECTIVE: Inferior vena cava (IVC) injuries have a high mortality rate that may be related to the location of injury and type of repair. Previous studies have been either single center series or database studies lacking granular detail. These have reported conflicting results. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature evaluating ligation versus repair. METHODS: Studies published in English on MEDLINE or EMBASE from 1946 through October 2018 were examined to evaluate mortality among patients treated with ligation versus repair of IVC injuries. Studies were included if they provided mortality associated with ligation versus repair and reported IVC injury by level. Risk of bias was assessed regarding incomplete and selective outcome reporting with Newcastle-Ottawa score of 7 or higher to evaluate study quality. We used a random-effects model with restricted maximum likelihood estimation method in R using the Metafor package to evaluate outcomes. RESULTS: Our systematic review identified 26 studies, of which 14 studies, including 855 patients, met our inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. IVC ligation was associated with higher mortality than IVC repair (OR: 3.12, P < 0.01, I2 = 49%). Ligation of infrarenal IVC injuries was not statistically associated with mortality (OR: 3.13, P = 0.09). Suprarenal injury location compared to infrarenal (OR 3.11, P < 0.01, I2 = 28%) and blunt mechanism compared to penetrating (OR: 1.91, P = 0.02, I2 = 0%) were also associated with higher mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis, ligation of IVC injuries was associated with increased mortality compared to repair, but not specifically for infrarenal IVC injuries. Suprarenal IVC injury, and blunt mechanism was associated with increased mortality compared to infrarenal IVC injury and penetrating mechanism, respectively. Data are limited regarding acute renal injury and venous thromboembolic events after IVC ligation and may warrant multicenter studies. Standardized reporting of IVC injury data has not been well established and is needed in order to enable comparison of outcomes across institutions. In particular, reporting of injury location, severity, and repair type should be standardized. A contemporary prospective, multicenter study is needed in order to definitively compare surgical technique.

[Some aspects of iatrogenic vessel injury]. / Nekotorye aspekty yatrogennykh povrezhdenii sosudov.

Iatrogenic events made up 1-10% of in-hospital mortality. Currently, iatrogenic vascular injuries are described for almost all surgical areas. Incidence of iatrogenic vascular injuries is gradually increased that is primarily associated with high number of percutaneous endovascular interventions. Surgical treatment of patients with iatrogenic vessel injuries is extremely difficult. This is due to sudden development of this complication, severe clinical state of the patient associated with underlying disease, acute massive blood loss, as well as insufficient experience of surgeon in urgent vascular surgery. Simple lateral or circular suturing is not always possible to restore the vessel integrity. Vascular replacement including non-standard vascular reconstructions are often required. Prevention of iatrogenic vascular injuries is also insufficiently described in the literature. Most manuscripts devoted to iatrogenic vascular injuries are usually represented by case reports or small sample. Thus, it is impossible to identify the main measures for prevention of iatrogenic injury.

Endovascular versus open repair of isolated superficial femoral and popliteal artery injuries.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the increasing use of endovascular therapy for traumatic arterial injuries, little is known about the outcomes of endovascular repair of superficial femoral artery (SFA) and popliteal artery (PA) injuries. In the present study, we compared the characteristics and outcomes of endovascular vs open repair of traumatic SFA and PA injuries. METHODS: We performed a retrospective National Trauma Data Bank analysis of trauma patients with a blunt or penetrating injury of the SFA and/or PA who had undergone endovascular or open repair from 2007 to 2014. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare the outcomes, with propensity score matching used for sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The incidence of SFA and PA injuries was 0.2%, with an overall increase in the annual use of endovascular stent repair from 3.2% in 2007 to 7.6% in 2014 (P = .002). A total of 2,873 patients with an isolated SFA and/or PA injury were included in the present study, of whom 163 (5.7%) had undergone endovascular repair. SFA injuries were more frequently treated with endovascular repair (70% vs 27%) and PA injuries were more often associated with open repair (41.1% vs 54.7%). Open repair was more frequently associated with a concomitant femur fracture or knee dislocation (30.7% vs 38.8%; P = .039). Endovascular repair was not associated with worse in-hospital amputation-free survival (AFS) compared with open repair on univariate analysis (91.1% vs 89.7%; P = .573) or multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio [OR], 1.053; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.551-2.012; P = .876). Propensity score matching revealed that in-hospital mortality was higher (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.37-9.82; P = .01) and fasciotomy was lower (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.14-0.37; P < .001) in the endovascular repair group, with no significant differences in AFS (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.48-1.67; P = .65). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular repair of SFA and PA injuries has in-hospital AFS comparable to that for open repair, supporting the increasing use of endovascular repair for traumatic SFA and PA injuries in appropriately selected cases. Given the unexpected finding of increased in-hospital mortality after endovascular repair, further studies are necessary to determine the appropriate patient selection and the durability of endovascular repair.