Effect of intravascular ultrasound on clinical outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt traumatic aortic injuries (BTAIs) can be complicated by inaccurate aortic measurements at the initial computed tomography angiography secondary to hypovolemic shock. The use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been proposed for more accurate aortic sizing, with prior data demonstrating larger aortic sizes measured by IVUS, potentially altering the vast majority of chosen endograft sizes. At present, and to the best of our knowledge, no studies have examined whether IVUS affects the clinical outcomes. The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of IVUS on the clinical outcomes after TEVAR for BTAIs.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed of patients who had undergone TEVAR for BTAIs in the VQI registry. The cohorts were defined by the use of IVUS. The primary outcomes were mortality and reintervention at 1 year.

RESULTS

A total of 919 patients who had undergone TEVAR for BTAIs were included in the present analysis. The IVUS patients had presented with higher injury severity scores (36.2 vs 42; P = .0004) largely because of more extremity and external trauma. IVUS was more often used for patients with grade III injuries (49.1% vs 56.9%; P = .02) and less often for patients with rupture (21.1% vs 12.4%; P = .001). A trend toward a delay in TEVAR was seen for the patients for whom IVUS was used (1.8 vs 3.5 days; P = .38), with additional trends toward reduced intraoperative resuscitation and blood loss. The hemodynamic status of the patients and differences in aortic or endograft sizes could not be assessed with the available data. IVUS use was not associated with any differences in survival or reintervention rates in-hospital or at 1 year (Kaplan-Meier survival estimates: 0.91 no IVUS vs 0.92 IVUS; P = .46). Fifteen aortic-related reinterventions occurred across the entire patient cohort for all-available follow-up with comparable rates of type I endoleaks (1 no IVUS vs 2 IVUS), with no recorded cases of sizing-related complications such as device rupture, migration, or dissection.

CONCLUSIONS

IVUS usage during TEVAR for BTAIs was associated with clinical scenarios in which patients were more stable and interventions to address BTAIs can be delayed. Despite this, the overall clinical outcomes were similar between cases in which IVUS was used and for which it was not.