Damage Control Endografting for the Unstable or Unfit Patient

Jonathan B. Imran, Shirling Tsai, Carlos H. Timaran, Rawson James Valentine, John Gregory Modrall

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: In the elective setting, both open surgical and endovascular therapies may be reasonable treatment options for many vascular conditions. However, an unstable or unfit patient with a vascular emergency may be less able to tolerate a definitive open vascular operation. We now report the outcomes for "damage control" endografting for unstable or unfit patients with vascular emergencies as bridge therapy before definitive open therapy. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent damage control endografting over a 9-year period (2005-2014) was performed. The primary inclusion criterion was the use of emergency damage control endografting as temporizing therapy to permit time for patient stabilization or optimization before definitive open repair. Patients who underwent endografting as planned definitive therapy were excluded. Results: Indications for damage control endografting included arterial bleeding or expanding hematoma related to infected pseudoaneurysms (n = 5), infected grafts (n = 3), or cancer (n = 1). Anatomic locations included the aorta (n = 3), common iliac artery (n = 2), common femoral artery (n = 2), common carotid artery (n = 1), and subclavian artery (n = 1). The median age was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR] 51-70). Five of our patients were male and 4 patients were female. Median follow-up was 8 months (IQR 3-11). Operative (30-day) mortality was 11%. A single patient died on postoperative day 12 after undergoing aortic and duodenal reconstruction related to an aortoenteric fistula. Using the damage control approach, clinical stabilization was achieved in 8 of the 9 patients (88%). One patient with a bleeding infected common femoral artery pseudoaneurysm continued to bleed and required emergent open surgical repair. Definitive open repair was completed in 8 of the 9 patients (88%) at a median time interval of 3 days (IQR 1-10). Planned open repair was not performed in a patient with exsanguinating carotid hemorrhage after the associated cancer was deemed unresectable. Conclusions: Damage control endografting facilitates stabilization of the majority of unstable and unfit patients with vascular emergencies to allow definitive open repair under more favorable conditions. This technique should be employed rarely due to the expense, but it is a technique worthy of consideration in select patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAnnals of Vascular Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Aug 2 2016

Fingerprint

Blood Vessels
Emergencies
False Aneurysm
Femoral Artery
Therapeutics
Hemorrhage
Exsanguination
Subclavian Artery
Iliac Artery
Common Carotid Artery
Hematoma
Fistula
Aorta
Neoplasms
Transplants
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Damage Control Endografting for the Unstable or Unfit Patient. / Imran, Jonathan B.; Tsai, Shirling; Timaran, Carlos H.; Valentine, Rawson James; Modrall, John Gregory.

In: Annals of Vascular Surgery, 02.08.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f97422ddb41a47648fef4378b22f8979,
title = "Damage Control Endografting for the Unstable or Unfit Patient",
abstract = "Background: In the elective setting, both open surgical and endovascular therapies may be reasonable treatment options for many vascular conditions. However, an unstable or unfit patient with a vascular emergency may be less able to tolerate a definitive open vascular operation. We now report the outcomes for {"}damage control{"} endografting for unstable or unfit patients with vascular emergencies as bridge therapy before definitive open therapy. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent damage control endografting over a 9-year period (2005-2014) was performed. The primary inclusion criterion was the use of emergency damage control endografting as temporizing therapy to permit time for patient stabilization or optimization before definitive open repair. Patients who underwent endografting as planned definitive therapy were excluded. Results: Indications for damage control endografting included arterial bleeding or expanding hematoma related to infected pseudoaneurysms (n = 5), infected grafts (n = 3), or cancer (n = 1). Anatomic locations included the aorta (n = 3), common iliac artery (n = 2), common femoral artery (n = 2), common carotid artery (n = 1), and subclavian artery (n = 1). The median age was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR] 51-70). Five of our patients were male and 4 patients were female. Median follow-up was 8 months (IQR 3-11). Operative (30-day) mortality was 11{\%}. A single patient died on postoperative day 12 after undergoing aortic and duodenal reconstruction related to an aortoenteric fistula. Using the damage control approach, clinical stabilization was achieved in 8 of the 9 patients (88{\%}). One patient with a bleeding infected common femoral artery pseudoaneurysm continued to bleed and required emergent open surgical repair. Definitive open repair was completed in 8 of the 9 patients (88{\%}) at a median time interval of 3 days (IQR 1-10). Planned open repair was not performed in a patient with exsanguinating carotid hemorrhage after the associated cancer was deemed unresectable. Conclusions: Damage control endografting facilitates stabilization of the majority of unstable and unfit patients with vascular emergencies to allow definitive open repair under more favorable conditions. This technique should be employed rarely due to the expense, but it is a technique worthy of consideration in select patients.",
author = "Imran, {Jonathan B.} and Shirling Tsai and Timaran, {Carlos H.} and Valentine, {Rawson James} and Modrall, {John Gregory}",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1016/j.avsg.2016.10.034",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Annals of Vascular Surgery",
issn = "0890-5096",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Damage Control Endografting for the Unstable or Unfit Patient

AU - Imran, Jonathan B.

AU - Tsai, Shirling

AU - Timaran, Carlos H.

AU - Valentine, Rawson James

AU - Modrall, John Gregory

PY - 2016/8/2

Y1 - 2016/8/2

N2 - Background: In the elective setting, both open surgical and endovascular therapies may be reasonable treatment options for many vascular conditions. However, an unstable or unfit patient with a vascular emergency may be less able to tolerate a definitive open vascular operation. We now report the outcomes for "damage control" endografting for unstable or unfit patients with vascular emergencies as bridge therapy before definitive open therapy. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent damage control endografting over a 9-year period (2005-2014) was performed. The primary inclusion criterion was the use of emergency damage control endografting as temporizing therapy to permit time for patient stabilization or optimization before definitive open repair. Patients who underwent endografting as planned definitive therapy were excluded. Results: Indications for damage control endografting included arterial bleeding or expanding hematoma related to infected pseudoaneurysms (n = 5), infected grafts (n = 3), or cancer (n = 1). Anatomic locations included the aorta (n = 3), common iliac artery (n = 2), common femoral artery (n = 2), common carotid artery (n = 1), and subclavian artery (n = 1). The median age was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR] 51-70). Five of our patients were male and 4 patients were female. Median follow-up was 8 months (IQR 3-11). Operative (30-day) mortality was 11%. A single patient died on postoperative day 12 after undergoing aortic and duodenal reconstruction related to an aortoenteric fistula. Using the damage control approach, clinical stabilization was achieved in 8 of the 9 patients (88%). One patient with a bleeding infected common femoral artery pseudoaneurysm continued to bleed and required emergent open surgical repair. Definitive open repair was completed in 8 of the 9 patients (88%) at a median time interval of 3 days (IQR 1-10). Planned open repair was not performed in a patient with exsanguinating carotid hemorrhage after the associated cancer was deemed unresectable. Conclusions: Damage control endografting facilitates stabilization of the majority of unstable and unfit patients with vascular emergencies to allow definitive open repair under more favorable conditions. This technique should be employed rarely due to the expense, but it is a technique worthy of consideration in select patients.

AB - Background: In the elective setting, both open surgical and endovascular therapies may be reasonable treatment options for many vascular conditions. However, an unstable or unfit patient with a vascular emergency may be less able to tolerate a definitive open vascular operation. We now report the outcomes for "damage control" endografting for unstable or unfit patients with vascular emergencies as bridge therapy before definitive open therapy. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent damage control endografting over a 9-year period (2005-2014) was performed. The primary inclusion criterion was the use of emergency damage control endografting as temporizing therapy to permit time for patient stabilization or optimization before definitive open repair. Patients who underwent endografting as planned definitive therapy were excluded. Results: Indications for damage control endografting included arterial bleeding or expanding hematoma related to infected pseudoaneurysms (n = 5), infected grafts (n = 3), or cancer (n = 1). Anatomic locations included the aorta (n = 3), common iliac artery (n = 2), common femoral artery (n = 2), common carotid artery (n = 1), and subclavian artery (n = 1). The median age was 56 years (interquartile range [IQR] 51-70). Five of our patients were male and 4 patients were female. Median follow-up was 8 months (IQR 3-11). Operative (30-day) mortality was 11%. A single patient died on postoperative day 12 after undergoing aortic and duodenal reconstruction related to an aortoenteric fistula. Using the damage control approach, clinical stabilization was achieved in 8 of the 9 patients (88%). One patient with a bleeding infected common femoral artery pseudoaneurysm continued to bleed and required emergent open surgical repair. Definitive open repair was completed in 8 of the 9 patients (88%) at a median time interval of 3 days (IQR 1-10). Planned open repair was not performed in a patient with exsanguinating carotid hemorrhage after the associated cancer was deemed unresectable. Conclusions: Damage control endografting facilitates stabilization of the majority of unstable and unfit patients with vascular emergencies to allow definitive open repair under more favorable conditions. This technique should be employed rarely due to the expense, but it is a technique worthy of consideration in select patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85014774643&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85014774643&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.avsg.2016.10.034

DO - 10.1016/j.avsg.2016.10.034

M3 - Article

C2 - 28242397

AN - SCOPUS:85014774643

JO - Annals of Vascular Surgery

JF - Annals of Vascular Surgery

SN - 0890-5096

ER -