Analysis of Traumatic Axillo-Subclavian Vessel Injuries: Endovascular Management is a Viable Option to Open Surgical Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND

In traumatic axillo-subclavian vessel injuries, endovascular repair has been increasingly described, despite ongoing questions regarding infection risk and long-term durability. We sought to compare the clinical and safety outcomes between endovascular and surgical treatment of traumatic axillo-subclavian vessel injuries.

METHOD

A search query of the prospectively maintained PROOVIT registry for patients older than 18 years of age with a diagnosis of axillary or subclavian vessel injury between 2014-2019 was performed at a Level 1 Trauma Center. Patient demographics, severity of injury, Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS), Injury Severity Score (ISS), procedural interventions, complications, and patency outcomes were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three patients with traumatic axillo-subclavian vessel injuries were included. There were similar rates of penetrating and blunt injuries (48% vs. 52%, respectively). Eighteen patients (78%) underwent intervention: 11 underwent endovascular stenting or diagnostic angiography; 7 underwent open surgical repair. There was similar severity of arterial injuries between the endovascular and open surgical groups: transection (30% vs. 40%, respectively), occlusion (30% vs. 40%, respectively). The open surgical group had worse initial clinical comorbidities: higher ISS scores (17.0 vs 13.5, p = 0.034), higher median MESS scores (6 vs. 3.5, P = 0.001). The technical success for the endovascular group was 100%. The endovascular group had a lower estimated procedural blood loss (27.5 mL vs. 624 mL, P = 0.03). The endovascular arterial group trended toward a shorter length of hospital stay (5.6 days vs. 27.6 days, P = 0.09) and slightly reduced procedural time (191.0 min vs. 223.5 min, P = 0.165). Regarding imaging follow up (average of 60 days post-discharge), 7 patients (54%) underwent surveillance imaging (5 with duplex ultrasound, 2 with computed tomography angiography CTA) that demonstrated 100% patency. Regardless of ISS or MESS scores, at long term clinical follow up (average of 214 days), there were no limb losses, graft infections or vascular complications in either the endovascular or open surgical group.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment is a viable option for axillo-subclavian vessel injuries. Preliminary results demonstrate that endovascular treatment, when compared to open surgical repair, can have similar rates of technical success and long-term outcomes in patency, infection and vascular complications.