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.