Impact of Endovascular Stenting on Outcomes in Patients with Traumatic Subclavian Artery Injury

Open versus endovascular repair of penetrating non-aortic arterial injuries: A systematic review and meta analysis

BACKGROUND

Non-aortic arterial injuries are common and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Historically, open surgical repair (OSR) was the conventional method of repair. With recent advancements in minimally invasive techniques, endovascular repair (ER) has gained popularity. We sought to compare outcomes in patients undergoing endovascular and open repairs of traumatic non-aortic penetrating arterial injuries.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using MEDLINE (OVID), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus Database from January 1st, 1990, to March 20th, 2023. Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by full text review. Articles assessing clinically important outcomes between OSR and ER in penetrating arterial injuries were included. Exclusion criteria included blunt injuries, aortic injuries, pediatric populations, review articles, and non-English articles. Odds ratios (OR) and Cohen's d ratios were used to quantify differences in morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 3770 articles were identified, of which 8 met inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The articles comprised a total of 8369 patients of whom 90 % were male with a median age of 28 years. 85 % of patients were treated with OSR while 15 % underwent ER. With regards to injury characteristics, those who underwent ER were less likely to present with concurrent venous injuries (OR: 0.41; 95 %CI: 0.18, 0.94; p = 0.03). Regarding hospital outcomes, patients who underwent ER had a lower likelihood of in-hospital or 30-day mortality (OR: 0.72; 95 %CI: 0.55, 0.95; p = 0.02) and compartment syndrome (OR: 0.29, 95 %CI: 0.12, 0.71; p = 0.007). The overall risk of bias was moderate.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular repair of non-aortic penetrating arterial injuries is increasingly common, however open repair remains the most common approach. Compared to ER, OSR was associated with higher odds of compartment syndrome and mortality. Further prospective research is warranted to determine the patient populations and injury patterns that most significantly benefit from an endovascular approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses.

Editor's Choice - In Hospital and Long Term Outcomes After Repair of Subclavian and Axillary Artery Injuries

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the in hospital and long term outcomes after open or endovascular repair of subclavian and axillary artery injuries.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, single centre study. Data were reviewed from patients with subclavian and or axillary injuries who presented to the authors' centre between January 2009 and December 2022. Outcome data included complications, death, amputations, and re-interventions. A p value < .050 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

Over the study period, 62 patients with subclavian or axillary trauma were admitted to the study hospital. Patients were young (median age 32.5 years, range 12 - 53) and most were men (85%); 32 patients experienced blunt trauma, and 30 penetrating trauma. The median injury severity score was 18 (interquartile range [IQR] 9, 34), and 47% of patients had a brachial plexus injury. The arterial injury was occlusion in 62% of patients, and the median ischaemia time was 12.5 hours (IQR 7.13, 24). All patients with subclavian injuries (n = 37) and 13 of 25 patients with an axillary injury underwent endovascular repair (stent graft placement). Open repair was performed in 12 patients with axillary injury (axillobrachial bypass in seven patients). At hospital discharge, the amputation free survival rate was 82% vs. 92% (p = .67), the mortality rate was 10% vs. 8% (p = 1.0), and the amputation rate was 10% vs. 0 (p = .57) for endovascular and open repair, respectively. The mean follow up time was 4.1 ± 3.5 years. After the seven year follow up, the stent primary patency was 42%. No re-interventions or amputations were performed after hospital discharge. Disability was related to fractures and soft tissue and brachial plexus injuries.

CONCLUSION

Endovascular treatment was preferred for patients with subclavian artery injuries. Open repair was preferred for patients with penetrating axillary injuries. In hospital and long term complications were related to fractures and soft tissue and brachial plexus injuries, rather than the treatment of arterial injuries. Measures are needed to reduce ischaemia time and improve brachial plexus injury repair.

Role of Endovascular Stenting in Patients with Traumatic Iliac Artery Injury

BACKGROUND

Common and external iliac artery injuries (IAI) portend significant morbidity and mortality. The goal of this study was to examine the impact of mechanism of injury and type of repair on outcomes and identify the optimal repair for patients with traumatic IAI using a large, national dataset.

STUDY DESIGN

Patients undergoing operative repair for IAI were identified from the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database during a 5-year timespan, ending in 2019. Age, sex, race, severity of injury, severity of shock, type of iliac repair (open or endovascular), mechanism, morbidity and mortality were recorded. Patients with IAI were stratified by both type of repair and mechanism and compared. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent predictors of mortality.

RESULTS

Operative IAI was identified in 507 patients. Of these injuries, 309 (61%) were penetrating and 346 (68.2%) involved the external iliac artery. The majority of patients were male (82%) with a median age and ISS of 31 and 20, respectively. Endovascular repair was performed in 31% of cases. For patients with penetrating injuries, the type of repair impacted neither morbidity nor mortality. For blunt-injured patients, endovascular repair was associated with lower morbidity (29.3% vs 41.3%; p = 0.082) and significantly reduced mortality (14.6% vs 26.7%; p = 0.037) compared with the open-repair approach. Multivariable logistic regression identified endovascular repair as the only modifiable risk factor associated with decreased mortality (odds ratio 0.34; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.79; p = 0.0116).

CONCLUSIONS

Traumatic IAI causes significant morbidity and mortality. Endovascular repair was identified as the only modifiable predictor of decreased mortality in blunt-injured patients with traumatic IAI. Therefore, for select patients with blunt IAIs, an endovascular repair should be the preferred approach.