CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · The Arab Journal of Interventional Radiology 2022; 06(02): 076-081
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1758041
Original Article

Comparing Outcomes in Transcatheter Embolization for the Management of Penetrating versus Blunt Trauma

1   Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Allopathic Medicine, Nova Southeastern University, Davie, Florida, United States
,
Wali Badar
2   Section of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Brian Funaki
3   Section of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Jeffrey A. Leef
3   Section of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Osman Ahmed
3   Section of Interventional Radiology, Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, United States
› Author Affiliations
Funding This study was not supported by any funding.

Abstract

Objectives This article assesses potential factors associated with successful embolization and/or mortality benefit among patients with penetrating (PT) compared to those with blunt abdominal trauma (BT) undergoing emergent angiography.

Materials and Methods A retrospective study of arterial embolization for BT and PT at a tertiary care academic center in an urban setting between 2018 and 2020 was conducted. Fischer's exact and Student's t-tests were used to assess differences between PT and BT, regarding technical success, in-hospital mortality, number of vessels embolized, and requirement of Operating Room (OR) for bleeding control after embolization.

Results Forty-three patients underwent embolization. Twenty-three presented with BT versus 20 with PT. There was no difference in the rate of success between the two groups (91.3% vs. 100%; p = 0.49). No difference was observed in mean days of survival among BT and PT patients treated by embolization (mean [standard deviation]: 13.7 [2.6] vs. 19.1 [2.79] days; p = 0.160). There was no difference in mortality between the two groups (13.0% vs. 10.5%; p = 1.00). Mean number of vessels embolized was higher in the BT group compared to PT (2.26 [1.32] vs. 1.44 [1.03], p = 0.044). The rate of BT patients who required subsequent OR intervention for hemorrhage control after embolization was similar to those with PT (8.7% vs. 10.5%; p = 0.84).

Conclusion The rate of mortality, technical success, and requirement of subsequent OR intervention for hemorrhage control was comparable between BT and PT. BT was associated with a higher mean number of vessels embolized compared to PT. Our case series may provide insight in the use of embolization for PT, but further investigation is needed with larger cohorts.

Ethics Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards


IRB Approval

This study has obtained IRB approval from University of Chicago and the need for informed consent was waived.


Consent for Publication

For this type of study consent for publication is not required.


This manuscript's abstract was presented at SIR Annual Meeting 2022 (Abstract ID: No. 92)




Publication History

Article published online:
14 November 2022

© 2022. The Pan Arab Interventional Radiology Society. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India