Contemporary Review of Traumatic Axillary and Subclavian Artery Injuries at an Urban Level One Trauma Center.

Abstract

Objective: Traumatic axillary and subclavian artery injuries are uncommon. Limited data are available regarding patient and injury characteristics, as well as management strategies and outcomes.

Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed on patients presenting to University of Louisville Hospital, an urban Level One Trauma Center, with traumatic axillary and subclavian artery injuries from 2015-2021. Patients were identified using University of Louisville trauma, radiology, and billing database searches based on ICD9/10 codes for axillary and subclavian artery injuries. Descriptive statistics are expressed as frequencies and percentages. Comparisons were performed using Fisher's Exact and Chi-squared tests.

Results: Forty-four patients with traumatic axillary-subclavian arterial injuries were identified for analysis. Blunt and penetrating trauma were equally represented (n = 22 for both). A variety of injury types were seen, including minimal/intimal injury, laceration, pseudoaneurysm, transection, occlusion, and arteriovenous fistula. Management strategies were also variable, including non-operative, endovascular, planned hybrid, open, and endovascular converted to open. In operative patients, revascularization technical success was high (n = 31, 97%) with low likelihood of thrombosis (n = 2, 6%) and no infections. Among all patients, amputation rate was 5% (n = 2) and mortality rate was 9% (n = 3). Regarding arterial involvement, blunt injury was more likely to affect the subclavian (n = 18) than the axillary artery (n = 6) (P = .04). No significant difference was seen in brachial plexus injury based on artery involved (subclavian = 9 vs axillary = 11, P = .14) or mechanism (blunt = 6 vs penetrating = 11, P = .22). Non-operative management was more likely with subclavian artery injury (n = 11) vs axillary artery injury (n = 1) (P = .008). There was no significant difference between decision for non-operative (blunt = 9, penetrating = 3) vs operative (blunt = 13, penetrating = 19) management based on mechanism (P = .09). Transection injury was associated with an open repair strategy (endovascular/hybrid = 1, open/endovascular to open conversion = 11, P = .0003). Of the three patients requiring endovascular to open conversion, two required amputation, which were the only two patients in the study undergoing amputation.

Conclusions: Both open and endovascular/hybrid strategies are useful when treating traumatic axillary and subclavian artery injuries and are associated with high likelihood of revascularization technical success, with low rates of thrombosis or infection, when treated promptly at a trauma center with vascular specialists available. Transection injuries were most often treated with open revascularization. Patients undergoing amputation had blunt transection injuries to the subclavian artery and underwent endovascular to open conversion after failed attempts at endovascular revascularization.