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

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.