National Trends of Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair versus Open Thoracic Aortic Repair in Pediatric Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury

Abstract

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: 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: 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: 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.