Embel V, Hafeez MS, Russo L, Ahmed N. Non-operative management of blunt traumatic aortic injuries. World J Cardiol 2026; 18(1): 111254 [DOI: 10.4330/wjc.v18.i1.111254]
Corresponding Author of This Article
Nasim Ahmed, FACS, Full Professor, Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, 1945 NJ-33, Neptune City, NJ 07753, United States. nasim.ahmed@hmhn.org
Research Domain of This Article
Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems
Article-Type of This Article
Systematic Reviews
Open-Access Policy of This Article
This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
World J Cardiol. Jan 26, 2026; 18(1): 111254 Published online Jan 26, 2026. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v18.i1.111254
Non-operative management of blunt traumatic aortic injuries
Veysel Embel, Muhammad Saad Hafeez, Larissa Russo, Nasim Ahmed
Veysel Embel, Department of Surgery, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, NJ 07753, United States
Muhammad Saad Hafeez, Department of Surgery, Henry Ford St John Hospital, Detroit, MI 48236, United States
Larissa Russo, Nasim Ahmed, Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, Neptune, NJ 07753, United States
Author contributions: Russo L and Ahmed N contributed to supervising and mentoring in writing the manuscript; Ahmed N contributed to conceptualization, supervised, mentoring, and wrote the original and revision of the manuscript. All the authors wrote the original manuscript and revised the manuscript.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All the authors report no relevant conflicts of interest for this article.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist statement: The authors have read the PRISMA 2009 Checklist, and the manuscript was prepared and revised according to the PRISMA 2009 Checklist.
Open Access: This article is an open-access article that was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: https://creativecommons.org/Licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Corresponding author: Nasim Ahmed, FACS, Full Professor, Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Jersey Shore University Medical Center, 1945 NJ-33, Neptune City, NJ 07753, United States. nasim.ahmed@hmhn.org
Received: June 26, 2025 Revised: July 25, 2025 Accepted: December 4, 2025 Published online: January 26, 2026 Processing time: 203 Days and 9.9 Hours
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI) is a life-threatening injury, commonly associated with high-speed motor vehicle collisions. Historically, open surgical repair was the standard treatment, however with the advancement of endovascular techniques such as thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), management strategies shifted towards endovascular repairs. Non-operative management (NOM) strategies are also favored for patients with low-grade injuries and particularly high-grade injuries recently. The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) 2011 guidelines recommend that grade I injuries should be managed non-operatively; newer studies also support NOM for grade II injuries.
AIM
To review higher-grade injuries. NOM can be favored for selected patients with grade III injuries.
METHODS
A retrospective review of literature to assess NOM in BTAI, using the PubMed, CINHAL, EBSCO, and Google Scholar databases, included articles published in the last 20 years between January 2003 and December 2023. Studies included Cohort studies, case-control studies, and observational studies. Two authors independently screened the titles, abstracts, and performed data extraction. Outcomes were compared by the type of treatment: NOM vs endovascular repair (TEVAR) vs open repair.
RESULTS
We identified 27 studies in our review that met the selection criteria. Most of the studies were based on retrospective analysis of institutional data, and only 16 papers reported BTAI in accordance with SVS reporting standards. A trend of increasing mortality across the BTAI grade was observed. There were heterogeneous results regarding outcomes after non-operative compared with endovascular and surgical repair. For grade I and II BTAI, NOM was associated with lower mortality, reduced rates of unplanned intervention, and resolution of pathology on follow-up. There were reports of NOM of grade III BTAI with reasonable outcomes and a high rate of resolution on follow-up, but data were limited due to very few studies focusing on this subgroup.
CONCLUSION
This review article provides the most up-to-date literature. Currently literature supporting the NOM for low-grade BTAI (grades I and II) treatment. Current SVS guidelines recommend endovascular repair for grade III BTAI patients; however, a few studies showed that grade III BTAI can be managed non-operatively with active surveillance in a selected group of patients. Literature requires further studies to compare NOM vs TEVAR in higher-grade BTAI population.
Core Tip: The non-operative management of blunt traumatic grade I aortic injury is a relatively common practice. The management of grade II aortic injury varies; some providers prefer an endovascular approach, while others prefer non-operative management. Successful non-operative management is associated with lower mortality and resolution of the primary pathology. However, non-operative management if not routinely applied for higher grade aortic injuries and the majority prefer an endovascular approach for higher grade, III or more, injury.
