Open vs Endovascular Treatment of Traumatic Peripheral Arterial Injury: Propensity Matched Analysis

Background: Arterial injuries occur in the setting of blunt and penetrating trauma. Despite increasing use, there remains a paucity of data comparing long-term outcomes of endovascular vs open repair management of these injuries. The aim of our study was to compare outcomes and readmission rates of open vs endovascular repair of traumatic arterial injuries. Study design: The National Readmission Database (2011–2014) was queried for all adult (age ≥ 18 y) patients presenting with peripheral arterial (axillary, brachial, femoral, and popliteal) injuries. Patients were stratified into 2 groups based on intervention: open vs endovascular approach. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio) was performed. Outcomes measures were complications, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and cost of readmission. Results: A matched cohort of 786 patients was obtained (endovascular: 262, open: 524). Mean age was 45 ± 17 years, and 79% were males. Median LOS was 4 (range 2–6) days for the endovascular group vs 3 (range 2–5) days for the open group (p < 0.01). The endovascular group had higher rates of seroma (4% vs 2%; p = 0.04) and arterial thrombosis (13% vs 7%; p < 0.01) during index hospitalization. Patients who underwent endovascular repair had higher 30-day readmission (11% vs 7%; p = 0.03) and a higher 30-day open-reoperation rate (6% vs 2%; p < 0.01). On subanalysis of the patients who were readmitted, the median cost of each readmission was higher in the endovascular group $47,000 ($27,202–$56,763) compared with $21,000 ($11,889–$43,503) in the open group. Conclusions: Endovascular repair for peripheral arterial injuries was associated with higher rates of in-hospital complications, readmissions, and costs. As this new technology continues to undergo refinement, a thorough re-evaluation of its indications, risks, and benefits is warranted.