The impact of urgency of repair on outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

Current societal recommendations regarding the timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) vary. Prior studies have shown that elective repair was associated with lower mortality after TEVAR for BTAI. However, these studies lacked data such as Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grades and TEVAR-related postoperative outcomes. Therefore, we used the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, which includes relevant anatomic and outcome data, to examine the outcomes following urgent/emergent (≤ 24 hours) vs elective TEVAR for BTAI. Patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI between 2013 and 2022 were included, excluding those with SVS grade 4 aortic injuries. We included covariates such as age, sex, race, transfer status, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin, comorbidities, medication use, SVS aortic injury grade, coexisting injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale, and prior aortic surgery in a regression model to compute propensity scores for assignment to urgent/emergent or elective TEVAR. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality were evaluated using inverse probability-weighted logistic regression and Cox regression, also adjusting for left subclavian artery revascularization/occlusion and annual center and physician volumes. Of 1016 patients, 102 (10%) underwent elective TEVAR. Patients who underwent elective repair were more likely to undergo revascularization of the left subclavian artery (31% vs 7.5%; P < .001) and receive intraoperative heparin (94% vs 82%; P = .002). After inverse probability weighting, there was no association between TEVAR timing and perioperative mortality (elective vs urgent/emergent: 3.9% vs 6.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-4.7; P = .90) and 5-year mortality (5.8% vs 12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.21-4.3; P > .9).Compared with urgent/emergent TEVAR, elective repair was associated with lower postoperative stroke (1.0% vs 2.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94; P = .044), even after adjusting for intraoperative heparin use (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .042). Elective TEVAR was also associated with lower odds of failure of extubation immediately after surgery (39% vs 65%; aOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.35; P < .001) and postoperative pneumonia (4.9% vs 11%; aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.91; P = .031), but comparable odds of any postoperative complication as a composite outcome and reintervention during index admission. Patients with BTAI who underwent elective TEVAR were more likely to receive intraoperative heparin. Perioperative mortality and 5-year mortality rates were similar between the elective and emergent/urgent TEVAR groups. Postoperatively, elective TEVAR was associated with lower ischemic stroke, pulmonary complications, and prolonged hospitalization. Future modifications in society guidelines should incorporate the current evidence supporting the use of elective TEVAR for BTAI. The optimal timing of TEVAR in patients with BTAI and the factors determining it should be the subject of future study to facilitate personalized decision-making.

Yadavalli SD ，Summers SP ，Rastogi V ，Romijn AC ，Marcaccio CL ，Lagazzi E ，Zettervall SL ，Starnes BW ，Verhagen HJM ，Schermerhorn ML ... -  《-》

16-year outcomes of blunt thoracic aortic injury treated with thoracic endovascular aortic repair: A single-institution experience.

Rahman T ，Halonen LM ，Handolin L ，Juvonen T ，Jormalainen M ，Dahlbacka S ... -  《-》

Clinical presentation, outcomes, and threshold for repair by sex in degenerative saccular vs fusiform aneurysms in the descending thoracic aorta.

Saccular-shaped thoracic aortic aneurysms (TAAs) are often treated at smaller diameters compared with fusiform TAAs, despite a lack of strong clinical evidence to support this practice. The aim of this study was to examine differences in presentation, treatment, and outcomes between saccular TAAs and fusiform TAAs in the descending thoracic aorta. We also examined the need for sex-specific treatment thresholds for TAAs. All Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) patients undergoing thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) for degenerative TAAs in the descending thoracic aorta from 2012 through 2022 were reviewed. Patients were stratified by urgency: emergent/urgent vs elective repairs (ruptured/symptomatic). Demographics, comorbidities, anatomical/procedural characteristics, and outcomes for fusiform TAAs and saccular TAAs were compared. Cumulative distribution curves were used to plot the proportion of patients who underwent emergent/urgent repair according to sex-stratified aortic diameter. Among 655 emergent/urgent TEVARs, 37% were performed for saccular TAAs, whereas among 1352 elective TEVARs, 35% had saccular TAA morphology. Compared with fusiform TAAs, saccular TAAs more frequently underwent emergent/urgent (ruptured/symptomatic) TEVAR below the repair threshold in both females (<50 mm: 38% vs 10%; relative risk, 3.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.04-5.70; P < .001), and males (<55 mm: 47% vs 21%; relative risk, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.60-3.18; P < .001). Moreover, among patients with emergent/urgent fusiform TAAs, females presented at smaller diameters compared with males, whereas there was no difference in preoperative aneurysm diameter among patients with saccular TAAs. Regarding outcomes, emergent/urgent treated saccular TAAs had similar postoperative outcomes and 5-year mortality compared with fusiform TAAs. Nevertheless, in the elective cohort, patients with saccular TAAs had similar postoperative mortality compared with those with fusiform TAAs, but a lower rate of postoperative spinal cord ischemia (0.7% vs 3.2%; P = .010). Furthermore, patients with saccular TAAs had a higher rate of 5-year mortality compared with their fusiform counterparts (23% vs 17%; hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.10; P = .010). Patients with saccular TAAs underwent emergent/urgent TEVAR at smaller diameters than those with fusiform TAAs, supporting current clinical practice guideline recommendations that saccular TAAs warrant treatment at smaller diameters. Furthermore, these data support a sex-specific treatment threshold for patients with fusiform TAAs, but not for those with saccular TAAs. Although there were no differences in outcomes following TEVAR between morphologies in the emergent/urgent cohort, patients with saccular TAAs who were treated electively were associated with higher 5-year mortality compared with those with fusiform TAAs.

Rastogi V ，Guetter CR ，Patel PB ，Anjorin AC ，Marcaccio CL ，Yadavalli SD ，Scali ST ，Beck AW ，Verhagen HJM ，Schermerhorn ML ... -  《-》

Comparison of Two Modern Survival Prediction Tools, SORG-MLA and METSSS, in Patients With Symptomatic Long-bone Metastases Who Underwent Local Treatment With Surgery Followed by Radiotherapy and With Radiotherapy Alone.

Survival estimation for patients with symptomatic skeletal metastases ideally should be made before a type of local treatment has already been determined. Currently available survival prediction tools, however, were generated using data from patients treated either operatively or with local radiation alone, raising concerns about whether they would generalize well to all patients presenting for assessment. The Skeletal Oncology Research Group machine-learning algorithm (SORG-MLA), trained with institution-based data of surgically treated patients, and the Metastases location, Elderly, Tumor primary, Sex, Sickness/comorbidity, and Site of radiotherapy model (METSSS), trained with registry-based data of patients treated with radiotherapy alone, are two of the most recently developed survival prediction models, but they have not been tested on patients whose local treatment strategy is not yet decided. (1) Which of these two survival prediction models performed better in a mixed cohort made up both of patients who received local treatment with surgery followed by radiotherapy and who had radiation alone for symptomatic bone metastases? (2) Which model performed better among patients whose local treatment consisted of only palliative radiotherapy? (3) Are laboratory values used by SORG-MLA, which are not included in METSSS, independently associated with survival after controlling for predictions made by METSSS? Between 2010 and 2018, we provided local treatment for 2113 adult patients with skeletal metastases in the extremities at an urban tertiary referral academic medical center using one of two strategies: (1) surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy or (2) palliative radiotherapy alone. Every patient's survivorship status was ascertained either by their medical records or the national death registry from the Taiwanese National Health Insurance Administration. After applying a priori designated exclusion criteria, 91% (1920) were analyzed here. Among them, 48% (920) of the patients were female, and the median (IQR) age was 62 years (53 to 70 years). Lung was the most common primary tumor site (41% [782]), and 59% (1128) of patients had other skeletal metastases in addition to the treated lesion(s). In general, the indications for surgery were the presence of a complete pathologic fracture or an impending pathologic fracture, defined as having a Mirels score of ≥ 9, in patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification of less than or equal to IV and who were considered fit for surgery. The indications for radiotherapy were relief of pain, local tumor control, prevention of skeletal-related events, and any combination of the above. In all, 84% (1610) of the patients received palliative radiotherapy alone as local treatment for the target lesion(s), and 16% (310) underwent surgery followed by postoperative radiotherapy. Neither METSSS nor SORG-MLA was used at the point of care to aid clinical decision-making during the treatment period. Survival was retrospectively estimated by these two models to test their potential for providing survival probabilities. We first compared SORG to METSSS in the entire population. Then, we repeated the comparison in patients who received local treatment with palliative radiation alone. We assessed model performance by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), calibration analysis, Brier score, and decision curve analysis (DCA). The AUROC measures discrimination, which is the ability to distinguish patients with the event of interest (such as death at a particular time point) from those without. AUROC typically ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, with 0.5 indicating random guessing and 1.0 a perfect prediction, and in general, an AUROC of ≥ 0.7 indicates adequate discrimination for clinical use. Calibration refers to the agreement between the predicted outcomes (in this case, survival probabilities) and the actual outcomes, with a perfect calibration curve having an intercept of 0 and a slope of 1. A positive intercept indicates that the actual survival is generally underestimated by the prediction model, and a negative intercept suggests the opposite (overestimation). When comparing models, an intercept closer to 0 typically indicates better calibration. Calibration can also be summarized as log(O:E), the logarithm scale of the ratio of observed (O) to expected (E) survivors. A log(O:E) > 0 signals an underestimation (the observed survival is greater than the predicted survival); and a log(O:E) < 0 indicates the opposite (the observed survival is lower than the predicted survival). A model with a log(O:E) closer to 0 is generally considered better calibrated. The Brier score is the mean squared difference between the model predictions and the observed outcomes, and it ranges from 0 (best prediction) to 1 (worst prediction). The Brier score captures both discrimination and calibration, and it is considered a measure of overall model performance. In Brier score analysis, the "null model" assigns a predicted probability equal to the prevalence of the outcome and represents a model that adds no new information. A prediction model should achieve a Brier score at least lower than the null-model Brier score to be considered as useful. The DCA was developed as a method to determine whether using a model to inform treatment decisions would do more good than harm. It plots the net benefit of making decisions based on the model's predictions across all possible risk thresholds (or cost-to-benefit ratios) in relation to the two default strategies of treating all or no patients. The care provider can decide on an acceptable risk threshold for the proposed treatment in an individual and assess the corresponding net benefit to determine whether consulting with the model is superior to adopting the default strategies. Finally, we examined whether laboratory data, which were not included in the METSSS model, would have been independently associated with survival after controlling for the METSSS model's predictions by using the multivariable logistic and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Between the two models, only SORG-MLA achieved adequate discrimination (an AUROC of > 0.7) in the entire cohort (of patients treated operatively or with radiation alone) and in the subgroup of patients treated with palliative radiotherapy alone. SORG-MLA outperformed METSSS by a wide margin on discrimination, calibration, and Brier score analyses in not only the entire cohort but also the subgroup of patients whose local treatment consisted of radiotherapy alone. In both the entire cohort and the subgroup, DCA demonstrated that SORG-MLA provided more net benefit compared with the two default strategies (of treating all or no patients) and compared with METSSS when risk thresholds ranged from 0.2 to 0.9 at both 90 days and 1 year, indicating that using SORG-MLA as a decision-making aid was beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting for treatment was 0.2 to 0.9. Higher albumin, lower alkaline phosphatase, lower calcium, higher hemoglobin, lower international normalized ratio, higher lymphocytes, lower neutrophils, lower neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, lower platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio, higher sodium, and lower white blood cells were independently associated with better 1-year and overall survival after adjusting for the predictions made by METSSS. Based on these discoveries, clinicians might choose to consult SORG-MLA instead of METSSS for survival estimation in patients with long-bone metastases presenting for evaluation of local treatment. Basing a treatment decision on the predictions of SORG-MLA could be beneficial when a patient's individualized risk threshold for opting to undergo a particular treatment strategy ranged from 0.2 to 0.9. Future studies might investigate relevant laboratory items when constructing or refining a survival estimation model because these data demonstrated prognostic value independent of the predictions of the METSSS model, and future studies might also seek to keep these models up to date using data from diverse, contemporary patients undergoing both modern operative and nonoperative treatments. Level III, diagnostic study.

Lee CC ，Chen CW ，Yen HK ，Lin YP ，Lai CY ，Wang JL ，Groot OQ ，Janssen SJ ，Schwab JH ，Hsu FM ，Lin WH ... -  《-》

Early Versus Delayed Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair for Blunt Thoracic Aortic Injury: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

We examined early (≤24 h) versus delayed (>24 h) thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI), taking the aortic injury severity into consideration. Current trauma surgery guidelines recommend delayed TEVAR following BTAI. However, this recommendation was based on small studies, and specifics regarding recommendation strategies based on aortic injury grades are lacking. Patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program between 2016 and 2019 were included and then stratified into 2 groups (early: ≤24 h vs. delayed: >24 h). In-hospital outcomes were compared after creating 1:1 propensity score-matched cohorts, matching for demographics, comorbidities, concomitant injuries, additional procedures, and aortic injury severity based on the acute aortic syndrome (AAS) classification. Overall, 1339 patients were included, of whom 1054(79%) underwent early TEVAR. Compared with the delayed group, the early group had significantly less severe head injuries (early vs delayed; 25% vs 32%; P =0.014), fewer early interventions for AAS grade 1 occurred, and AAS grade 3 aortic injuries often were intervened upon within 24 hours (grade 1: 28% vs 47%; grade 3: 49% vs 23%; P <0.001). After matching, the final sample included 548 matched patients. Compared with the delayed group, the early group had a significantly higher in-hospital mortality (8.8% vs 4.4%, relative risk: 2.2, 95% CI: 1.1-4.4; P =0.028), alongside a shorter length of hospital stay (5.0 vs 10 days; P =0.028), a shorter intensive care unit length of stay (4.0 vs 11 days; P <0.001) and fewer days on the ventilator (4.0 vs 6.5 days; P =0.036). Furthermore, regardless of the higher risk of acute kidney injury in the delayed group (3.3% vs 7.7%, relative risk: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.20-0.92; P =0.029), no other differences in in-hospital complications were observed between the early and delayed group. In this propensity score-matched analysis, delayed TEVAR was associated with lower mortality risk, even after adjusting for aortic injury grade.

Romijn AC ，Rastogi V ，Proaño-Zamudio JA ，Argandykov D ，Marcaccio CL ，Giannakopoulos GF ，Kaafarani HMA ，Jongkind V ，Bloemers FW ，Verhagen HJM ，Schermerhorn ML ，Saillant NN ... -  《-》