National Trends of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair versus Open Thoracic Aortic Repair in Pediatric Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury.
Adolescent
Age of Onset
Aorta, Thoracic
/ diagnostic imaging
Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation
/ adverse effects
Databases, Factual
Endovascular Procedures
/ adverse effects
Humans
Incidence
Length of Stay
Male
Postoperative Complications
/ mortality
Retrospective Studies
Risk Assessment
Risk Factors
Thoracic Injuries
/ diagnostic imaging
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
United States
/ epidemiology
Vascular System Injuries
/ diagnostic imaging
Wounds, Nonpenetrating
/ diagnostic imaging
Journal
Annals of vascular surgery
ISSN: 1615-5947
Titre abrégé: Ann Vasc Surg
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8703941
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
07
11
2018
revised:
22
12
2018
accepted:
24
12
2018
pubmed:
26
2
2019
medline:
3
9
2019
entrez:
26
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) occurs in <1% of all trauma admissions. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the preferred treatment modality in adult patients with BTAI, but its use in pediatrics is currently not supported by device manufacturers and lacks United States Food and Drug Administration approval. We hypothesized that there would also be an increased use of TEVAR in the pediatric population, thus conferring a lower risk of mortality compared with open thoracic aortic repair (OTAR). The National Trauma Data Bank (2007-2015) was queried for patients ≤17 years with BTAI. The primary outcomes were the incidences of TEVAR and OTAR. Secondary outcome was risk of mortality in those undergoing intervention. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine the risk of mortality in OTAR versus TEVAR. We identified 650 pediatric BTAI patients with 159 (24.5%) undergoing intervention. Of these, 124 underwent TEVAR (78.0%) and 35 (22.0%) underwent OTAR. The rate of TEVAR steadily increased from 2007 to 2015 (15.4% vs. 27.1%, P < 0.001). Patients receiving OTAR and TEVAR had a similar injury severity score and rate of hypotension on admission (P > 0.05). Compared with OTAR, TEVAR patients had a higher rate of any traumatic brain injury (TBI) (63.7% vs. 37.1%, P = 0.005) and shorter hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS) (16.4 vs. 21.4 days, P = 0.02; 10.1 vs. 12.2 days, P = 0.01). TEVAR and OTAR, even when stratified by ≤14 years and 15-17 years, had no difference in risk for mortality (odds ratio 1.20, confidence interval 0.29-5.01, P = 0.80). The rate of TEVAR in pediatric BTAI nearly doubled from 2007 to 2015. Compared with OTAR, TEVAR was associated with a shorter hospital LOS despite a higher rate of TBI. There was no difference in risk for mortality between TEVAR and OTAR. Longitudinal studies to determine the long-term efficacy and complication rates, including reintervention, development of endoleak, and/or need for further operations, are needed as this technology is being rapidly adopted for pediatric trauma patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) occurs in <1% of all trauma admissions. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has become the preferred treatment modality in adult patients with BTAI, but its use in pediatrics is currently not supported by device manufacturers and lacks United States Food and Drug Administration approval. We hypothesized that there would also be an increased use of TEVAR in the pediatric population, thus conferring a lower risk of mortality compared with open thoracic aortic repair (OTAR).
METHODS
METHODS
The National Trauma Data Bank (2007-2015) was queried for patients ≤17 years with BTAI. The primary outcomes were the incidences of TEVAR and OTAR. Secondary outcome was risk of mortality in those undergoing intervention. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine the risk of mortality in OTAR versus TEVAR.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We identified 650 pediatric BTAI patients with 159 (24.5%) undergoing intervention. Of these, 124 underwent TEVAR (78.0%) and 35 (22.0%) underwent OTAR. The rate of TEVAR steadily increased from 2007 to 2015 (15.4% vs. 27.1%, P < 0.001). Patients receiving OTAR and TEVAR had a similar injury severity score and rate of hypotension on admission (P > 0.05). Compared with OTAR, TEVAR patients had a higher rate of any traumatic brain injury (TBI) (63.7% vs. 37.1%, P = 0.005) and shorter hospital and intensive care unit length of stay (LOS) (16.4 vs. 21.4 days, P = 0.02; 10.1 vs. 12.2 days, P = 0.01). TEVAR and OTAR, even when stratified by ≤14 years and 15-17 years, had no difference in risk for mortality (odds ratio 1.20, confidence interval 0.29-5.01, P = 0.80).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The rate of TEVAR in pediatric BTAI nearly doubled from 2007 to 2015. Compared with OTAR, TEVAR was associated with a shorter hospital LOS despite a higher rate of TBI. There was no difference in risk for mortality between TEVAR and OTAR. Longitudinal studies to determine the long-term efficacy and complication rates, including reintervention, development of endoleak, and/or need for further operations, are needed as this technology is being rapidly adopted for pediatric trauma patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30802562
pii: S0890-5096(19)30172-4
doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2018.12.094
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
150-157Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.