Blunt traumatic aortic injury: Initial experience with endovascular repair

ObjectivesEndovascular treatment of traumatic aortic injury (TAI) is an alternative to open repair (OR) in patients with blunt trauma. We report our initial experience after integration of endovascular repair using thoracic devices.MethodsA retrospective review of a prospectively collected institutional trauma registry was performed. Between September 2005 and November 2008, 71 patients with TAI presented to our institution. Based on imaging, TAIs were classified into grade 1-4 in severity. These included: grade 1, intimal tear; grade 2, intramural hematoma; grade 3, aortic pseudoaneurysm; and grade 4, free rupture. Initial management included resuscitation, blood pressure control, and treatment of associated injuries. After stabilization, all patients were considered for thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) using a thoracic device. If contraindicated, candidates underwent OR. Outcome measures were mortality, stroke, paraplegia, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital stay.ResultsThe mean age was 39.8 years, with 50 males. The mean injury severity score (ISS) was 42.6. Nineteen (27%) patients with a mean ISS of 60 died shortly after arrival prior to any vascular intervention. Ten (14%) patients with grade 1 injuries were managed medically. The remaining 42 (59%) patients with grade 2 and 3 injuries underwent repair. Median interval between admission and repair was 4.3 days (range, 0-109 days). Fifteen (21%) patients with a mean ISS of 34.4 underwent OR with no mortality, stroke, or paraplegia. Twenty-seven (38%) patients with a mean ISS of 36.7 underwent TEVAR with no mortality or paraplegia. One TEVAR patient suffered a perioperative stroke. Twenty-two patients had a TAG (W.L. Gore & Associates, Flagstaff, Ariz) device. Four patients had a Talent Thoracic (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, Calif), and 1 patient had an Excluder (W.L. Gore) device. The left subclavian artery was covered in 13 (48%) patients. Patients who underwent TEVAR were older than those who had OR (47.8 vs 31.1 years, P < .006). The aortic diameter proximal to the injury was larger in the TEVAR group (24.4 vs 19.6 mm, P < .0001). There was no difference in the mean ICU or hospital length of stay between the two groups. Mortality correlated with the ISS score (P < .0001). Median follow-up time was 19.4 months (range, 0-27). Only 56% of the TEVAR patients were fully compliant with their surveillance imaging protocol.ConclusionIn this initial experience, the results of TEVAR did not differ from OR. Long-term follow-up is required to determine the effectiveness of this treatment strategy. Adherence to follow-up imaging protocols is challenging in this patient population. Next generation devices will make TEVAR applicable to a wider range of patients

Update on blunt thoracic aortic injury: Fifteen-year single-institution experience

ObjectivesDespite improvements in the management of blunt thoracic aortic injury, mortality remains high. We report our experience with blunt thoracic aortic injury at a level 1 trauma center over the past 15 years.MethodsBetween January 1, 1997, and January 1, 2012, data on 338 patients who presented with suspected blunt thoracic aortic injury were entered into the University of Texas Medical School at Houston Trauma Center Registry. A total of 175 patients (52%) underwent thoracic aortic repair; 29 (17%) had open repair with aortic crossclamping, 77 (44%) had open repair with distal aortic perfusion, and 69 (39%) had thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Outcomes were determined, including early mortality, morbidity, length of stay, and late survival. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to compute adjusted estimates for the effects of the operative technique.ResultsThe early mortality for all patients with blunt thoracic aortic injury was 41% (139/338). Early mortality was 17% (27/175) for operative aortic interventions, 4% (3/69) for thoracic endovascular aortic repairs, 31% (11/29) for open repairs with aortic crossclamping, and 14% (11/77) for open repairs with distal aortic perfusion. Survival for thoracic endovascular aortic repair at 1 year and 5 years was 92% and 87%, respectively. Survival for open repair at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years was 76%, 75%, 72%, and 68%, respectively.ConclusionsBlunt thoracic aortic injury remains associated with significant early mortality. Delayed selective management, when applied with open repair with distal aortic perfusion and the use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair, has been associated with improved early outcomes. The long-term durability of thoracic endovascular aortic repair is unknown, necessitating close radiographic follow-up

Postoperative renal function preservation with nonischemic femoral arterial cannulation for thoracoabdominal aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Renal failure after thoracoabdominal aortic repair is a significant clinical problem. Distal aortic perfusion for organ and spinal cord protection requires cannulation of the left femoral artery. In 2006, we reported the finding that direct cannulation led to leg ischemia in some patients and was associated with increased renal failure. After this finding, we modified our perfusion technique to eliminate leg ischemia from cannulation. In this article, we present the effects of this change on postoperative renal function. METHODS: Between February 1991 and July 2008, we repaired 1464 thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms. Distal aortic perfusion was used in 1088, and these were studied. Median patient age was 68 years, and 378 (35%) were women. In September 2006, we began to adopt a sidearm femoral cannulation technique that provides distal aortic perfusion while maintaining downstream flow to the leg. This was used in 167 patients (15%). We measured the joint effects of preoperative glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and cannulation technique on the highest postoperative creatinine level, postoperative renal failure, and death. Analysis was by multiple linear or logistic regression with interaction. RESULTS: The preoperative GFR was the strongest predictor of postoperative renal dysfunction and death. No significant main effects of sidearm cannulation were noted. For peak creatinine level and postoperative renal failure, however, strong interactions between preoperative GFR and sidearm cannulation were present, resulting in reductions of postoperative renal complications of 15% to 20% when GFR was \u3c60 mL\u3e/min/1.73 m(2). For normal GFR, the effect was negated or even reversed at very high levels of GFR. Mortality, although not significantly affected by sidearm cannulation, showed a similar trend to the renal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Use of sidearm cannulation is associated with a clinically important and highly statistically significant reduction in postoperative renal complications in patients with a low GFR. Reduced renal effect of skeletal muscle ischemia is the proposed mechanism. Effects among patients with good preoperative renal function are less clear. A randomized trial is needed

Comparison of military and civilian popliteal artery trauma outcomes

ObjectivePopliteal artery injury has historically led to high amputation rates in both the military and civilian setting. Military and civilian popliteal injury patterns differ in mechanism and severity of injury, prompting us to compare modern management and report differences in outcomes between these two patient groups. We hypothesized that whereas amputation rates may be higher in the military, this would correlate with worse overall injury severity.MethodsMilitary casualties from 2003-2007 with a popliteal artery injury identified from the Joint Theater Trauma Registry were compared retrospectively with civilian patients presenting to a single level I institution from 2002-2009 with popliteal arterial injury. Demographics, mechanism of injury, coinjuries, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Mangled Extremity Severity Scores (MESS), interventions, and secondary amputation rates were reviewed. Descriptive statistics and unpaired t-tests were used to compare data. Statistical significance was P < .05.ResultsThe study group of 110 patients consisted of 46 (41.8%) military and 64 (58.2%) civilians with 48 and 64 popliteal artery injuries, respectively. The military population was younger (28 vs 35 years; P < .004), entirely male (46 [100%] vs 51 [80%]; P < .0001), and had more penetrating injuries (44 [96%] vs 19 [30%]; P < .0001). ISS (18.7 vs 13.9; P < .005) and MESS (7.3 vs 5.1; P < .0001) were higher in the military group. Limb revascularizations in both military and civilian populations were mostly by autogenous bypass (65% vs 77%) followed by primary repair (26% vs 16%), covered stent (0% vs 6%), or other procedure (ligation and/or thrombectomy) (9% vs 1%). Fasciotomy (20 [42%] vs 37 [58%]; P = .14), compartment syndrome (10 [21%] vs 15 [23%]; P = .84), and concomitant venous repair rates (14 [29%] vs 15 [23%]; P = .42) were not different between cohorts. There was no difference in the fracture rate (26 [54%] vs 41 [64%]; P = .43), but the civilian group had a higher rate of dislocation (1 [2%] vs 19 [30%]; P < .0001). Secondary amputation rates were significantly higher in the military (14 [29%] vs 8 [13%]; P < .03).ConclusionsAlthough both civilian and military cohorts have high amputation rates for popliteal arterial injury, the rate of amputation appears to be higher in the military and is associated with a penetrating mechanism of injury primarily from improvised explosive devices resulting in a higher MESS and ISS

Subclinical embolization after carotid artery stenting: New lesions on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging occur postprocedure

ObjectivesThe reported rate of subclinical brain injury after carotid artery stenting (CAS) seen on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) varies from 10% to >40%. Data from transcranial Doppler after CAS indicate that embolization may continue for several days, suggesting that that at least some lesions seen on DWI occur postprocedure. Because DWI lesions appear ≤1 hour of embolization, we used DWI to prospectively study patients before CAS, 1 hour after, and 48 hours after CAS to answer this question.MethodsThe study participants were 48 male patients aged 59 to 83. All patients were examined by a neurologist before and after the procedure and had DWI preprocedure and 48 hours postprocedure. In addition, 23 patients had a DWI 1 hour post-CAS. Magnetic resonance imaging exams, including axial and coronal DWI and fluid-attenuated inversion recovery images, were read by two neuroradiologists blinded to the study timing. The embolic protection device was obtained from all patients, washed, and the contents examined under a digital microscope for fragments ≥60 μm.ResultsThere were two periprocedural strokes and one transient ischemic attack (TIA), but no strokes or TIAs occurred during follow-up. In the 23 patients imaged 1 hour postprocedure, new lesions were found in two (9%), and 18 (78%) had new lesions at 48 hours (P < .001). For the entire study group, the incidence of new lesions at 48 hours was 67% (36/54). The median number of DWI lesions was four (range, 1 to 17). Every protection device examined had atherosclerotic debris, with a mean of 135 ± 73 fragments (range, 18 to 310) sized >60 μm and a mean of eight fragments (range, 2 to 21) sized >500 μm. Findings on postprocedure DWI did not correlate with the degree of stenosis, size of angioplasty balloon, or number of inflations, nor with the number or size of fragments retrieved from the protection device.ConclusionsCAS can be performed with a very low incidence of clinically evident neurologic events; however, it is associated with embolization during and after the procedure. Protection devices effectively prevent clinical and subclinical events during the procedure. Significant embolization continues for at least 48 hours postprocedure, causing lesions on DWI when there is no mechanism for cerebral protection. These data correlate with transcranial Doppler reports of continued embolization after CAS and indicate that DWI should be done as late as possible to accurately assess the rate of subclinical brain injury with CAS procedures