Emergency center arteriography in the evaluation of suspected peripheral vascular injuries

From January 1982 through June 1983, 488 patients with suspected peripheral vascular injuries were examined with the use of 515 emergency center arteriograms performed by surgical residents via hand injection of contrast material using a single roentgenographic film. A total of 130 (25%) abnormal arteriograms resulted, including vascular spasm in nine instances and occlusion of noncritical arteries in 19 instances. One hundred two (20%) operations resulted from these abnormal emergency center arteriograms. A diminished pulse rate was the indication for performing 76 arteriograms, 52 (68%) of which were abnormal; however, only 43 patients from this group required surgery. Anatomic proximity to a major vessel was the sole indication for performing 352 arteriograms, 59 (17%) of which were abnormal. There was one false-normal arteriogram, one delayed development of an arteriovenous fistula, and four false-abnormal arteriograms. No complications of arteriography occurred during examination or at the time of clinic follow-up. Single-injection arteriography in the emergency center is a simple, sensitive, accurate, and cost-effective technique for the examination of patients with potential peripheral vascular injuries.     

Assessment of proximity of a wound to major vascular structures as an indication for arteriography

The use of angiography to evaluate penetrating extremity wounds with proximity to major vascular structures remains controversial. Arteriography in the asymptomatic patient with a penetrating extremity wound is reported to identify arterial injuries in 6% to 21% of patients; however, some injuries may have little clinical importance. This study attempted to determine the value of proximity as an indication for angiography. Five hundred seven asymptomatic patients with 534 penetrating extremity injuries underwent arteriography due to proximity to major vascular structures. Thirty-six arteriograms (6.7%) were positive. Seven patients did not undergo operative exploration, 19 patients (3.6%) had arteriograms, and ten (1.9%) had false-positive arteriograms. The remaining 498 patients had true-negative examination results. Arteriography was associated with 13 complications (2.6%). Proved vascular injury in the clinically asymptomatic patients in our series was extremely low (3.6%). These data make it difficult to justify arteriography due to proximity of injury to major vascular structures. However, it is difficult to abandon exclusion arteriography based on these retrospective data. These observations do suggest that better criteria to define proximity need to be identified.     

Role of arteriography for blunt or penetrating injuries in proximity to major vascular structures: An evolution in management

Over a 14-month period at Boston City Hospital, 93 consecutive patients who had received a blunt or penetrating extremity injury in proximity to a major vascular structure were evaluated. All patients were totally asymptomatic and underwent arteriography for proximity as a sole indication. Twenty-seven patients (27%) were found to have abnormal arteriograms. Muscular branches of the profunda femoris artery were the most frequently injured arteries (28%). Arterial spasm (41%) was the most common radiographic finding. All patients were managed nonoperatively and followed closely by serial pulse examinations. Follow-up arteriography or duplex scanning was used in isolated cases. No patients in this study required operative intervention based on arteriographic findings. No patients have subsequently required operative intervention for delayed arterial abnormalities. Based on these findings we believe the use of arteriography for asymptomatic injuries in proximity to major vascular structures is unwarranted.     

Utility of arteriography in penetrating extremity injuries

The role of contrast arteriography in the management of patients with penetrating injuries of the extremities is a subject of active debate. To examine our experience, the charts of patients with penetrating injuries of the extremities were retrospectively reviewed. Data from 82 consecutive patients with 98 wounds over the 5-year period from January 1984 to December 1988 were reviewed. Sixty-five arteriograms were obtained to investigate 98 wounds: 8 to localize a clinically apparent wound and 57 because of proximity of the wound or the trajectory of the injuring agent to a major neurovascular bundle. Of the 57 arteriograms obtained because of proximity, 11 identified a vascular injury (19%). Six of these wounds required vascular repair; five patients were treated expectantly. Six of the eight arteriograms obtained for clinical indications were positive (75%), while two were negative (25%). There were no amputations in the study, and all vascular reconstructions were considered successful by clinical and vascular laboratory criteria. One patient died of thoracic injuries; otherwise, all patients were discharged in good condition. Long-term follow-up was not available. In summary, 19% of arteriograms done because of proximity criteria alone identified a clinically occult vascular injury. While only 11% of all proximity arteriograms revealed injuries requiring surgical repair, this rate of significant injury warrants aggressive use of proximity arteriography in a patient population that is prone to poor follow-up.     

The value of technetium-99M renography for the detection of renal artery stenosis in patients with aortic and lower limb vascular disease.

The results of technetium renography were compared with arteriography to determine whether this is a satisfactory screening test for renal artery stenosis (RAS). Sixty-three patients were studied before aortic surgery. All were investigated by aortography and isotope renography. These tests were assessed blind and all arteriograms were graded by a single independent radiologist. Renal artery stenosis was detected by arteriography in 34 (54%) patients. Twenty-three (37%) had mild (less than 50%) stenosis, seven (11%) had moderate (50-80%) stenosis and four (6%) had severe (greater than 80%) stenosis. Of these 34 patients, only 6 (18%) were correctly diagnosed by isotope renography. None of the four with severe stenosis were identified. Isotope renography resulted in six true positives, six false positives, 23 true negatives and 28 false negatives. It was concluded that isotope renography did not fulfil the criteria for a screening test for the detection of RAS and appeared to be of no value in those patients undergoing aortic surgery in whom arteriography was not indicated.     

THE VALUE OF TECHNETIUM-99M RENOGRAPHY FOR THE DETECTION OF RENAL ARTERY STENOSIS IN PATIENTS WITH AORTIC AND LOWER LIMB VASCULAR DISEASE

The results of technetium renography were compared with arteriography to determine whether this is a satisfactory screening test for renal artery stenosis (RAS). Sixty-three patients were studied before aortic surgery. All were investigated by aortography and isotope renography. These tests were assessed blind and all arteriograms were graded by a single independent radiologist. Renal artery stenosis was detected by arteriography in 34 (54%) patients. Twenty-three (37%) had mild (< 50%) stenosis, seven (11%) had moderate (50–80%) stenosis and four (6%) had severe (> 80%) stenosis. Of these 34 patients, only 6 (18%) were correctly diagnosed by isotope renography. None of the four with severe stenosis were identified. Isotope renography resulted in six true positives, six false positives, 23 true negatives and 28 false negatives. It was concluded that isotope renography did not fulfil the criteria for a screening test for the detection of RAS and appeared to be of no value in those patients undergoing aortic surgery in whom arteriography was not indicated.     

Vascular proximity: is it a valid indication for arteriography in asymptomatic patients?

The role of arteriography in asymptomatic patients with penetrating extremity wounds in proximity to major vessels is controversial. This prospective study was designed to evaluate a precise definition of proximity, determine the incidence of positive arteriograms, and correlate angiographic interpretation with operative findings. Proximity was defined as any wound located within 1 cm of a major vessel. Excluded were patients with a pulse deficit, bruit, thrill, history of arterial hemorrhage, expanding hematoma, nerve deficit, fracture, or significant soft-tissue injury. One hundred sixty arteriograms were performed in 146 patients. One hundred forty-three (89.4%) were true-negatives. Seventeen (10.6%) were suggestive of injury. These included seven (4.4%) true-positive arteriograms, six (3.8%) false-positive studies, and four (2.5%) positive arteriograms in patients who were not operated upon. The angiographic report correlated with operative findings in five (38.5%) of 13 patients. These data confirm the low incidence (4.4%) of vascular injury in asymptomatic patients. The use of extremity angiography when proximity is the sole indication in an asymptomatic patient with a normal vascular examination must be questioned.     

The role of contrast arteriography in suspected arterial injuries of the extremities

The records of 215 patients presenting with 218 penetrating or blunt injuries to the extremities from 1977 through 1983 have been reviewed. All patients presenting with pulsatile hemorrhage, expanding hematoma, or absent distal pulses were explored immediately. Patients with injuries in close proximity to a major artery but without classical signs of arterial injury were explored routinely from 1977 through 1980. Thereafter, similar patients were evaluated initially with contrast arteriography and explored only if arteriographic abnormalities suggested arterial injury. Routine exploration of proximity injuries has been compared with selective exploration based on contrast arteriography. Sixty-one patients (group 1) underwent routine exploration for proximity injuries. Vascular injuries were detected in ten (16%) patients, while 51 (84%) of the explorations were negative. Eighty-four patients (group 2) with proximity injuries were studied arteriographically. Ten patients (11.9%) were explored on the basis of abnormal arteriograms, and eight arterial injuries were confirmed. Two (2.4%) of the 84 patients in this group had negative explorations. The use of contrast arteriography enabled the authors to reduce their negative exploration rate from 84 to 2.4 per cent in the management of proximity injuries.     

Impact of routine arteriography on management of penetrating neck injuries

We evaluated the impact of routine arteriography on the management of 105 patients with penetrating injuries to the neck and upper chest. Of 72 patients with bullet wounds and 33 with knife wounds, surgical exploration on an emergency basis was performed in three patients because of shock; the remaining 102 underwent aortic arch or selective arteriography. Surgical exploration was performed in 18 patients because of abnormal arteriograms and in 13 (10 with normal arteriograms) because of shock or suspected hemorrhage. Operative findings confirmed the angiographic interpretation in 26 of the 31 patients who were explored. The angiogram underestimated the arterial injury in two patients and failed to identify an associated venous injury in three. Seventy-two patients with negative arteriograms received expectant treatment without subsequent complications. Routine arteriography is integral to expeditious triage and accurate diagnosis of patients with brachiocephalic trauma. A negative study in almost 80% of patients permits safe nonoperative management, whereas a positive study allows the surgeon to plan his operative approach more judiciously. Endoscopic procedures are important adjuncts in selected patients. (J VASC SURG 1984;1:860-866.)     

Are arteriograms necessary in penetrating zone II neck injuries?

The evaluation and management of potential arterial injuries in penetrating neck trauma are controversial. Routine surgical exploration or arteriography can be very expensive and time-consuming and can overburden available resources if used in all patients. We reviewed the records of 4035 patients seen in our trauma center during a 20-month period and identified a total of 110 patients (2.7%) with penetrating wounds to zone II of the neck; 50 were from gunshot wounds, 43 from stab wounds, 7 from shotgun injuries, and 10 from lacerations. In 42 (39%) patients there was no arteriogram or surgery based on location of the wounds or lack of any physical findings. None of these patients later had any evidence of an arterial injury. Forty-five patients (40%) had arteriograms based on proximity or a "soft" sign of vascular injury, which included evidence of significant bleeding or a stable hematoma. A total of 15 injuries to major arteries were identified: 3 common carotid, 5 internal carotid, and 7 vertebral. One patient died during initial resuscitation, and four patients went directly to surgery with no preoperative arteriogram for active bleeding and expanding hematoma (n = 1), an expanding hematoma (n = 2), and a large, stable hematoma (n = 1). Only one patient (of the 110) had a significant major arterial injury requiring surgery that was not predicted by physical findings. Nine arterial injuries were treated nonoperatively: six vertebral, two common carotid intimal flaps, and one small distal internal carotid pseudoaneurysm (diagnosed late). Three additional minor external carotid artery injuries were observed with no adverse sequelae.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Continued experience with physical examination alone for evaluation and management of penetrating zone 2 neck injuries: results of 145 cases

PURPOSE: Our preliminary experience with physical examination alone in the evaluation of penetrating zone 2 neck injuries for vascular trauma was previously reported in 28 patients over a 2-year period (1991-1993). The purpose of the current study was to examine the results of this approach in a much larger group of patients over an 8-year period. METHODS: The medical records for all patients admitted to our level I trauma center (all of them entered into our prospective protocol) between December 1991 and April 1999 with penetrating zone 2 neck trauma were reviewed for their initial presentation and any documented vascular injury. RESULTS: A total of 145 patients made up the study group; in 30 of these patients, the penetrating trajectory also traversed zone 1 or 3. Thirty-one patients (21%) had hard signs of vascular injury (active bleeding, expanding hematoma, bruit/thrill, pulse deficit, central neurologic deficit) and were taken immediately to the operating room; 28 (90%) of these 30 patients had either major arterial or venous injuries requiring operative repair (the false-positive rate for physical examination thus being 10%). Of the 114 patients with no hard signs, 23 underwent arteriography because of proximity of the injury to the vertebral arteries or because the trajectory included another zone. Of these 23 arteriograms, three showed abnormalities, but only one required operative repair. This case had no complications relating to the initial delay. The remaining 91 patients with no hard signs were observed without imaging or surgery for a minimum of 23 hours, and none had any evidence of vascular injury during hospitalization or during the initial 2-week follow-up period (1/114; false-negative rate for physical examination, 0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: This series confirms the earlier report indicating that patients with zone 2 penetrating neck wounds can be safely and accurately evaluated by physical examination alone to confirm or exclude vascular injury. The missed-injury rate is 0.7% (1/145) with this approach, which is comparable to arteriography in accuracy but less costly and noninvasive. Long-term follow-up is needed to confirm this management option.     

Arteriography performed in the emergency center

Arteriography is a sensitive, accurate diagnostic tool for the evaluation of suspected peripheral arterial injuries. A single hand injection study in the emergency center offers a simple, cost-effective, and time-saving maneuver for accomplishing this goal. It is noteworthy that the techniques described are performed with only a minimum of equipment and demand no special training on the part of the radiologic technician. Emergency center arteriography can be beneficial for ruling out suspected peripheral vascular injury in the massively injured patient who will require other extensive procedures. However, the procedure described is probably most beneficial for excluding potential injury in the patient who has no sign of arterial injury other than anatomic proximity of a blunt or penetrating injury to a peripheral vessel. It is true that many surgeons will not order formal arteriograms on an emergency basis for the asymptomatic patient with normal distal pulses, yet we have found that 13 percent of such patients require operative intervention for an arterial injury. It is in precisely this setting that the surgeon can perform a rapid arteriogram in the emergency center. After a negative arteriogram is obtained, the patient can be discharged from the emergency center or admitted for observation with the assurance that arterial injury is absent.     

10-year review of knee dislocations: is arteriography always necessary?

BACKGROUND: Historically, arteriography has been used routinely in patients with knee dislocations. Recently, selectivity based on physical examination (PE) has emerged. Critics cite limited clinical evidence. We sought to determine whether PE accurately confirms or excludes surgically significant vascular injuries associated with knee dislocations. METHODS: We conducted an institutional review board-approved retrospective review of patients admitted at a university-based Level I trauma center with knee dislocations from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2002. Thirty-nine patients (28 male patients and 11 female patients; average age, 42.8 years) had 39 dislocations (27 left and 12 right, 26 posterior and 13 anterior). Most patients (n = 25) were involved in motor vehicle crashes. All patients underwent arteriography. RESULTS: Of the 20 normal arteriograms, all had normal PE. Of the 19 abnormal arteriograms, 8 had a normal PE and 11 were abnormal. Within this subgroup, none of the 8 with normal PE required surgery, whereas 7 of the 11 with abnormal PE required surgery. None of the nonoperative patients had vascular complications during the hospital stay. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% for PE on surgically significant vascular injury. CONCLUSION: Routine arteriography is unnecessary in patients with a normal PE after reduction of the knee dislocation.     

Is arterial proximity a valid indication for arteriography in penetrating extremity trauma? A prospective analysis

Three hundred seventy-three patients with a penetrating extremity injury were studied to assess the yield of arteriography. Patients underwent arteriography if any of the following was present: bruit, history of hemorrhage or hypotension, fracture, hematoma, decreased capillary refill, major soft-tissue injury, or nerve or pulse deficit. In the absence of these findings, arteriography was performed if the injury was in "proximity" to a major neurovascular bundle. In 216 patients, arteriography was performed when an abnormal finding was noted. Sixty-five injuries were identified, 19 requiring intervention. Proximity was the indication for arteriography in 157 patients. Seventeen injuries were identified, of which one required repair. In penetrating extremity trauma, the need for arteriography is based on clinical findings. The use of arteriography to screen for an arterial injury when proximity alone is the indication rarely identifies a significant injury and should be abandoned.     

Noninvasive diagnosis of vascular trauma by duplex ultrasonography

Duplex ultrasonography was used prospectively in the initial evaluation of 198 patients with 319 potential vascular injuries of the neck and extremities. Patients who were unstable or who had obvious arterial trauma were excluded. Injury was caused by gunshot in 104 (53%), blunt trauma in 42 (21%), stab wound in 34 (17%), and shotgun in 18 (9%). Duplex ultrasonography correctly characterized and localized vascular injuries in 23 patients: arterial disruptions (13), intimal flaps (4), acute pseudoaneurysms (3), arteriovenous fistulas (2), and shotgun pellet arteriopuncture (1). Nineteen other patients had vasospasm (13) or external compression (6) without evidence of intrinsic vessel injury, these 42 studies had true-positive results. Twenty patients underwent arterial repair (13 on the basis of duplex ultrasonography alone), one had primary amputation, three required fasciotomy, and 18 were observed. Two patients with false-negative results had minor shotgun pellet arteriopunctures that were missed by duplex ultrasonography, but neither needed repair. One hundred fifty-three patients had true-negative results on duplex ultrasonography: all clinically had only proximity injuries and easily palpable distal pulses. The result of one duplex ultrasonography study was found to be false-positive on arteriography. The sensitivity of duplex ultrasonography was 95%, the specificity was 99%, and the overall accuracy was 98%. These results closely approximate those reported with the use of exclusion arteriography in the evaluation of similar vascular trauma patients. Furthermore, duplex ultrasonography has no interventional risks and is more cost-effective for screening such injuries than arteriography or exploration. Duplex ultrasonography is a reliable method of diagnosis in patients with potential peripheral vascular injuries.     

Superiority of balloon occlusion arteriography to reactive hyperemic arteriography in visualization of distal lower limb vessels

Balloon occlusion arteriography was performed in 38 lower limbs; reactive hyperemic arteriography was also performed in 16 of these limbs. To assess the safety and utility of this technique the balloon occlusion arteriograms of all 38 patients were reviewed retrospectively by a vascular surgeon and vascular radiologist who were unaware of the patient's identity and ultimate treatment. After the arteriograms were reviewed and the outflow vessels identified, a decision was made regarding operability and optimal recipient vessel for distal bypass. Twenty-two of the 38 patients underwent balloon occlusion arteriography only, and 21/22 (95.5%) of these patients only had studies deemed adequate for surgical planning. Twelve of the 16 (75%) patients underwent both reactive hyperemic arteriography and balloon occlusion arteriography; potential distal outflow vessels not seen on reactive hyperemic arteriograms were observed on balloon occlusion arteriograms. In only 4/16 (25%) patients the balloon occlusion arteriograms did not yield additional information. No complications were associated with this technique. Approximately 8.5 g of iodine per run is used for balloon occlusion arteriography compared with approximately 37 g of iodine per run for reactive hyperemic arteriography. Balloon occlusion arteriography is a safe and accurate adjunctive technique that can be used when identification of lower limb vessels is critical.Presented at the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Peripheral Vascular Surgery Society, Chicago, Ill., June 7, 1992.     

CT angiography effectively evaluates extremity vascular trauma

Traditionally, conventional arteriography is the diagnostic modality of choice to evaluate for arterial injury. Recent technological advances have resulted in multidetector, fine resolution computed tomographic angiography (CTA). This study examines CTA for evaluation of extremity vascular trauma compared with conventional arteriography. Our hypothesis is that CTA provides accurate and timely diagnosis of peripheral vascular injuries and challenges the gold standard of arteriogram. Traumatic extremity injuries over a 5-year period were identified using a Level I trauma center registry and radiology database. Information collected included patient demographics, mechanism, imaging modality, vascular injuries, management, and follow-up. Two thousand two hundred and fifty-one patients were identified with extremity trauma. Twenty-four patients were taken directly to the operating room for evaluation and management of vascular injuries. Fifty-two underwent vascular imaging. Fourteen patients had conventional arteriograms with 13 abnormal studies: 7 were managed operatively, 2 embolized, and 4 observed. Thirty-eight patients underwent CTA with 17 abnormal scans: 9 were managed operatively, 3 embolized, and 5 observed. There were no false negatives or missed injuries. CTA provides accurate peripheral vascular imaging while additionally offering advantages of noninvasiveness and immediate availability. Secondary to these advantages, CTA has supplanted arteriography for initial radiographic evaluation of peripheral vascular injuries at our Level I trauma center. This study supports CTA as an effective alternative to conventional arteriography in assessing extremity vascular trauma.     

The reliability of physical examination in the evaluation of penetrating extremity trauma for vascular injury: results at one year

All cases of penetrating extremity trauma (PET) seen at an urban trauma center were prospectively studied to determine the accuracy and safety of physical examination as the sole mode of evaluation for vascular injury. All patients with PET producing obvious or "hard" signs of vascular injury underwent immediate surgery. All asymptomatic proximity wounds were observed in hospital for 24 hours before discharge to outpatient followup. Patients with non-proximity wounds were discharged immediately. Patients with shotgun wounds and thoracic outlet injuries also underwent arteriography. Of 2,674 trauma patients evaluated during the 1-year study period, 310 (11.6%) had 366 penetrating extremity wounds, most (71%) occurring in the lower extremities. Gunshots caused most (82%) of the wounds, followed by stabs or lacerations (14.5%), and shotguns (3%). Clinically occult wounds in proximity to major limb vessels were the most common (78%) category of clinical presentation, followed by asymptomatic non-proximity wounds (16%), and wounds producing hard signs (6%). There were two missed vascular injuries, both in the asymptomatic proximity group (0.7% false negatives). Every patient taken immediately to surgery for hard signs had major arterial injury requiring repair, for a 100% positive predictive value for physical examination. No mortality or morbidity were related to protocol management. These results to date support prior reports of a negligible incidence of significant vascular injury following clinically occult proximity PET, and further suggest that the overall predictive value of physical examination of PET for vascular injury approaches 100%.     

The role of angiography in penetrating neck trauma

Seventy-two consecutive patients who underwent neck arteriography were reviewed to assess recent suggestions that angiography is not indicated in asymptomatic patients with penetrating neck trauma. Proximity to major neck vessels without signs or symptoms of vascular trauma was the reason for angiography in ten of 26 patients with proven arterial injuries. Physical examination had a specificity of 80% and a sensitivity of 61% in this series. There was no correlation between mechanism or location of penetration and the likelihood of clinically significant injury. We conclude that recent recommendations suggesting that arteriography is unnecessary in asymptomatic patients with penetrating neck trauma are premature. Further investigations of larger patient samples are necessary to determine if "proximity" should be abandoned as an indication for arteriography. We advocate that, until additional data are accumulated, urgent arteriography and esophagography or operative exploration are indicated in stable asymptomatic patients with neck wounds which violate the platysma.     

Physical exam and occult post-traumatic vascular lesions: implications for the evaluation and management of arterial injuries in modern warfare in the endovascular era

Based on complexity of extremity wounds sustained in recent combat, arteriography had been used routinely in evaluations for delayed or occult arterial injuries. This report aims to quantitatively analyze the sensitivity and specificity of physical exam (PE) in predicting the presence of these injuries. United States service members sustaining extremity trauma in the Global War on Terrorism were evacuated to our medical center and evaluated by a senior vascular surgeon. Those with an abnormal PE, at risk based on wounding patterns, or previously treated for vascular injury underwent arteriography. Data from each patient were prospectively entered into a Vascular Injury registry. Comprehensive information about the injuries, interventions, arteriogram results, and any periprocedural complications were analyzed. Twenty-five endovascular or open surgical interventions were performed in forty-six of 99 patients that had lesions on arteriography. Seventy-three patients had a normal PE, of which 36 had lesions that prompted 6 subsequent interventions. Twenty-two of 26 patients with an abnormal PE had lesions that prompted 19 interventions. For PE, sensitivity was 38%, specificity was 90%, and positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 85% and 51%, respectively. In proximity injuries, PPV improved to 100%, but was only 15% sensitive with a NPV of 60%. In conclusion normal PE did not reliably predict post-traumatic arterial lesions in these military extremity injuries. These lesions are amenable to endovascular therapies, and should be considered in cases of complex trauma involving high amounts of energy, penetrating mechanisms, or wounding patterns in proximity to named vessels.