Addressing Contemporary Management of Vascular Trauma: Optimization of Patient Care Through Collaboration

Epidemiology and outcomes of traumatic vascular injury repair by trauma surgeons and vascular surgeons in a collaborative model

BACKGROUND

Management roles for peripheral vascular injuries (PVI) are a source of ongoing debate given the concern for the loss of vascular skills among general surgeons and trauma surgeons (TS). We sought to analyze outcomes of PVI managed by TSs or vascular surgeons (VSs).

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of a single, Level I trauma center. Trauma patients with PVI who underwent repair from 2010 to 2021 were included. Patients were separated into groups by the surgical specialty (TS or VS) undertaking the first intervention of the injured vessel.

RESULTS

A total of 194 patients were included, with 101 (52%) PVI managed by TS and 93 (48%) by VS. The TS group had more penetrating injuries (84% vs. 63%, p < 0.01), were more often hypotensive (17% vs. 6%, p = 0.01), and had a higher median Injury Severity Score (10 vs. 9, p < 0.001). Time from arrival to operating room was lower in the TS group (77 vs. 257 minutes, p < 0.01), with no difference in rates of preoperative imaging. The TS group performed damage-control surgery (DCS) more frequently (21% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.01). There was no difference in reintervention rates between the two groups after excluding patients that required reintervention for definitive repair after DCS (13% vs. 9%, p = 0.34). Mortality was 8% in the TS group and 1% in the VS group ( p = 0.02) with no deaths related to the PVI repair in either group. There was no difference in PVI repair complication rates between the two groups (18% vs. 13%; p = 0.36).

CONCLUSION

In our collaborative model at a high-volume trauma center, a wide variety of PVI are surgically managed by TS with VS. immediately available for consultation or for definitive repair of more complex vascular injuries. Trauma surgeons performed more DCS on higher acuity patients. No difference in vascular-related complications was detected between groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Outcomes of vascular trauma associated with an evolution in the use of endovascular management

BACKGROUND

The availability of endovascular techniques has led to a paradigm shift in the management of vascular injury. While 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 2013-2019 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 3,249 patients included, 76% were male, and overall treatment type was 42% nonoperative, 44% open, 14% endovascular. Endovascular treatment increased an average of 2% per year from 2013-2019 (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 (ISS) 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 ISS (25 vs. 21, p=.003) compared to open repair.

CONCLUSION

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.

Trauma surgeon-performed peripheral arterial repairs are associated with equivalent outcomes when compared with vascular surgeons

BACKGROUND

Civilian extremity trauma with vascular injury carries a significant risk of morbidity, limb loss, and mortality. We aim to describe the trends in extremity vascular injury repair and compare outcomes between trauma and vascular surgeons.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective review of patients 18 years or older with extremity vascular injury requiring surgical intervention between January 2009 and December 2019. Demographics, injury characteristics, operative course, and hospital course were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were used to examine management trends, and outcomes were compared for arterial repairs. Multivariate regression was used to evaluate surgeon specialty as a predictor of complications, readmission, vascular outcomes, and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 231 patients met our inclusion criteria; 80% were male with a median age of 29 years. The femoral vessels were most commonly injured (39.4%), followed by the popliteal vessels (26.8%). Trauma surgeons performed the majority of femoral artery repairs (82%), while vascular surgeons repaired the majority of popliteal artery injuries (84%). Both had a similar share of brachial artery repairs (36% vs. 39%, respectively). There were no differences in complications, readmission, vascular outcomes, and mortality. Median time from arrival to operating room was significantly shorter for trauma surgeons. There was a significant downward trend between 2009 and 2017 in the proportion of total and femoral vascular procedures performed by trauma surgeons. On multivariate regression, surgical specialty was not a significant predictor of need for vascular reintervention, prophylactic or delayed fasciotomies, postoperative complications, or readmissions.

CONCLUSION

Traumas surgeons arrived quicker to the operating and had no difference in short-term clinical outcomes of brachial and femoral artery repairs compared with patients treated by vascular surgeons. Over the last decade, there has been a significant decline in the number of open vascular repairs done by trauma surgeons.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management, Level IV.