Delayed Management of Blunt Traumatic Aortic Injury: Open Surgical Versus Endovascular Repair

Background A growing body of evidence has shown that delayed management of traumatic injury of the thoracic aorta determines survival benefits as compared with immediate treatment. However, few data exist comparing outcomes after delayed open surgical or endovascular management. Accordingly, we reviewed our experience with delayed management, stratifying the data according to type of repair; open surgical versus endovascular. Methods Since 1992, delayed aortic repair has represented our first-line management for all blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury (BTTAI) patients, except for those who presented with or became unstable due to impending aortic rupture. These patients were converted to urgent primary aortic repair. Thus, between 1992 and 2010, a total of 77 BTTAI patients were managed according to this policy. There were 57 (74%) men having a mean age of 33.4 years. Thirty-one (41.3%) patients underwent open surgical repair (SR), 44 (58.6%) underwent endovascular repair (ER), and 2 died while awaiting aortic repair. At admission, the clinical and trauma characteristics were similar in both groups. The trauma-to-repair time span (in days) was 200 (Q1-Q3: 27 to 340) and 10 (Q1-Q3: 2 to 79) for SR and ER patients, respectively ( p = 0.001). Due to unpaired hemodynamic or imaging signs of impending aortic rupture, 15 patients required urgent repair, which was endovascular in 11 (25%) cases and surgical in 4 (12.9%). Results Overall, hospital mortality was 3.9% (n = 3), being 0% in SR patients and 2.3% (n = 1) in ER patients ( p = 0.398). No new postoperative paraplegia occurred; a cerebellar stroke occurred in 1 (2.3%) ER patient receiving intentional coverage of the left subclavian artery. During follow-up (96.1% complete at 95 ± 70 months), no late deaths occurred. At 15 years, the estimates of survival and freedom from secondary aortic procedures were 96% and 100%, respectively. Conclusions Delayed management of traumatic aortic injury was associated with satisfactory short- and long-term results without significant differences between open surgical and endovascular repair. However, the reduced invasiveness of endovascular repair can optimize operative timing allowing prompt aortic repair in unstable patients, earlier repair in stable patients, and, when indicated, easier concomitant non-aortic surgery.