Endovascular Stent-Graft or Open Surgical Repair for Blunt Thoracic Aortic Trauma: Systematic Review
Received 7 November 2007; received in revised form 10 May 2008; accepted 18 May 2008. published online 27 June 2008.
Purpose
To evaluate the available data on stent-graft repair of acute blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injury with regard to safety and efficacy compared with conventional open surgical repair.
Materials and Methods
The literature on endovascular repair of acute traumatic aortic injury since 1990 was systematically reviewed. Metaanalysis of publications with open and stent-graft repair cohorts was performed to evaluate whether there was a difference in treatment effect with regard to mortality and paraplegia. Case series were included to obtain an adequate population to assess the incidence of stent-graft procedure–related complications.
Results
There were no prospective randomized studies. Nineteen publications that compared the outcomes of 262 endograft repairs and 376 open surgical repairs were identified. The odds ratio for mortality after endovascular versus open repair was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.26–0.70; P = .001). The odds ratio for paraplegia after endovascular versus open repair was 0.30 (95% CI, 0.12–0.76; P = .01). In the pooled group of 667 endovascular repair survivors from 50 reports, the incidence of early endoleak was 4.2%, and late endoleak occurred in 0.9%. Stroke or transient ischemic attack was reported in 1.2%. Access site complications that required intervention occurred in 4.1%.
Conclusions
The available cohort and case series data support stent-graft repair as a highly successful technique that may reduce mortality and paraplegia rates by half compared with open surgery. These data support endograft repair as first-line therapy for blunt thoracic aortic trauma.
Dartmouth Medical School and the Department of Radiology, Section of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center, One Medical Center Drive, Lebanon, NH 03756.
Address correspondence to E.K.H.
None of the authors have identified a conflict of interest.
ABSTRACT