• Michael S Hong, Robert J Feezor, W Anthony Lee, and Peter R Nelson.
• Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University of Florida College of Medicine, FL, USA.
• J. Vasc. Surg. 2011 Jan 1;53(1):36-42; discussion 43.

BackgroundAortic injury is the second leading cause of death in trauma. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has recently been applied to traumatic thoracic aortic injuries (TTAIs) as a minimally invasive alternative to open surgery. We sought to determine the impact of TEVAR on national trends in the management of TTAI.MethodsWe queried the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from the years 2001 to 2007 to select patients diagnosed with TTAI (International Classification of Disease-9 code 901.0). Patients were evaluated based on open surgical repair, TEVAR, or nonoperative management, before and after widespread adoption of TEVAR (2001-2005 and 2006-2007). Outcomes of interest were inpatient mortality, length of stay (LOS), and major complications.ResultsAn estimated 1180 annual admissions occurred for TTAI in the United States. Comparing the two time periods, there was an increase in TEVAR (P < .001) with a simultaneous decrease in open repair (P < .001) in 2006 to 2007. The overall number of interventions also increased (P < .001). Overall mortality decreased (25.0% vs 19.0%;P < .001), corresponding to improved survival in the nonoperative group (28.0% vs 23.2%; P < .001). There was no improvement in open repair mortality rates between the two time periods. Comparing intervention types, the TEVAR group had a higher percentage of patients with brain injury (26.1% vs 20.6%; P = .008), lung injury (25.0% vs 17.7%; P < .001), and hemothorax (32.5% vs 21.7%; P < .001) than the open surgery group. There were no differences in the number of intra-abdominal injuries or major orthopedic fractures. The open surgery group had more respiratory complications (43.9% vs 54.2%; P < .001), whereas TEVAR had a higher stroke rate (1.9% vs 0.7%; P = .021). There were no differences in paraplegia or renal failure. Overall in-hospital mortality was 23.2% (nonoperative group 26.7%, open repair 12.4%, and TEVAR 10.6%). Mortality between open repair and TEVAR groups were not significantly different. LOS was shorter among the TEVAR group vs open (15.7 vs 22.9 days; P < .001).ConclusionTEVAR has replaced open repair as the primary operative treatment for TTAI and has extended operative treatment to those patients not previously considered candidates for repair. Increased utilization of TEVAR is associated with improved overall mortality. There is no difference in mortality between TEVAR and open repair groups in our study, which likely reflects the multisystem nature of injury and greater preoperative risk in the TEVAR group.Published by Mosby, Inc.

25 keywords...

hide…