INTRODUCTION
Blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVIs) are relatively uncommon vascular traumas affecting carotid and vertebral arteries, with traumatic vertebral artery injuries (tVAIs) in cervical spine trauma now recognized as critical for prompt diagnosis and early intervention to prevent neurological complications [
1]. While the reported incidence of tVAI in general trauma is approximately 1%, it can reach up to 11% in patients with specific blunt trauma criteria such as traumatic brain injury (TBI) and cervical spine injuries, with patients having cervical transverse foramen fractures or facet dislocations showing an associated tVAI rate as high as 27.5% [
1-
4]. The substantial variability in reported incidence rates can be attributed to differences in study populations, inconsistent trauma management approaches, and diverse BCVI screening protocols implemented across healthcare institutions [
5-
7].
The Denver criteria are screening guidelines that help identify BCVIs in trauma patients. Originally developed in 1996 and updated in 2005 and 2012, these criteria have been progressively refined to determine which patients need computed tomography (CT) angiography (CTA), improving early detection and reducing stroke risk [
8]. BCVI are classified according to the Biffl scale, which categorizes vascular injuries into 5 grades [
9]. The 5 tier system scores vascular injuries in ascending order of severity: dissections (I–II), pseudoaneurysms (III), occlusions (IV), and complete transections (V) [
5,
9]. According to recent systematic reviews, stroke risk varies significantly by BCVI grade, with higher-grade injuries (III–IV) associated with a 10% stroke frequency compared to 2%–3% for lower-grade injuries (I–II), while grade V injuries remain too rare in the literature to support conclusive statistical analysis [
1]. Despite medical treatment, tVAI carry a substantial stroke risk of approximately 5%–9% with evidence suggesting that early initiation of antithrombotic therapy may reduce these rates; however, an optimal treatment protocol remains undefined, requiring careful consideration of bleeding risks and potential surgical interventions in polytraumatized patients [
1,
4]. Heightened clinical awareness has resulted in increased screening for tVAI [
10]. However, the low incidence of tVAI in general trauma screening results in a large number needed to image (NNI) values raising questions about cost-effectiveness and clinical utility. Improved screening strategies targeting subgroups at risk may alleviate these concerns [
3]. Subgroups that are more likely to have sustained tVAI include patients with cervical fractures, especially C1–3 and fractures involving the transverse foramen, as well as subluxations and injuries to the facet joints [
1,
11-
13]. The likelihood of BCVI also increases with severe TBI, craniofacial injuries, thoracic aperture rib fractures, thoracic vascular injuries, unexplained neurological deficits, and high-energy trauma [
12,
14].
International guidelines are often combined with local institutional guidelines resulting in a variety of different screening strategies [
5-
7]. Digital subtraction angiography (DSA) has historically been the gold standard for tVAI detection and characterization. However, DSA is nowadays primarily reserved for patients at elevated risk, whose CTA results are inconclusive or negative [
4]. Over the past 2 decades, CTA has replaced DSA as the preferred diagnostic method, owing to its cost-effectiveness, broader accessibility, quicker acquisition time, and fewer complications [
5]. Subsequently, several trauma guidelines now recommend CTA as the primary screening tool [
6,
7]. As a result of increased availability, there has been a significant rise in CTA imaging and consequently a rising concern for overutilization. While many studies and guidelines have focused on traumatic carotid artery injuries (tCAIs), this study aims to evaluate the frequency of tVAI in a cohort of level 1 trauma patients with emphasis on the NNI to find clinically relevant injuries, describing also our screening protocols.
DISCUSSION
In this large retrospective study of level 1 trauma patients, the incidence of tVAI during the study period was found to be 2.2%, with a posterior circulation stroke rate of 0.9%. The NNI to detect one tVAI was 46, and for one posterior circulation stroke, 114. Notably, these NNI values increased over time, from 35 to 65 for tVAI, and from 90 to 149 for posterior stroke between 2013–2017 and 2018–2020, upon implementation of a universal CTA screening approach for all patients with high-energy level 1 trauma. These findings highlight the challenges in balancing diagnostic yield and imaging efficiency in modern trauma imaging and care.
The most frequent tVAI types were Biffl grade IV (61.3%) and grade II (21.0%). Previous meta-analytic data suggest that grade III and IV injuries carry a significantly elevated stroke risk, while grade I and II injuries are associated with lower risk [
1]. Of the 25 infratentorial strokes, 12.0% occurred in Biffl grade I, 32.0% in grade II, none in grade III, 52.0% in grade IV, and 4.0% in grade V. However, given the small subgroup sizes—especially in grades III and V—and the complete lack of events in the 2 grade III patients, the statistical analysis lacked sufficient precision to draw meaningful conclusions. Larger, multicenter cohorts will therefore be required to robustly assess the relationship between Biffl grade and stroke risk. Furthermore, while the Biffl grading system has been a cornerstone in the evaluation of BCVI, the recent classification of traumatic vascular injuries from the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) offers a potentially more nuanced framework [
21]. The ESVS classification differs from the Biffl system in its stratification, e.g., Biffl grades I and II are consolidated into ESVS grade I, which may allow for a more streamlined yet clinically meaningful assessment of vascular trauma, potentially offering improved alignment with therapeutic decision-making and outcome prediction. Future studies could benefit from incorporating or comparing this updated grading system, potentially leading to improved diagnostic accuracy, risk stratification, and management pathways for patients with tVAI.
The incidence of bilateral tVAI (16.1%) was slightly higher than the 12.3% reported by a meta-analysis by Michalopoulos et al. [
1], suggesting a potentially greater severity of injury or improved detection in our population. Conversely, the rate of concurrent tCAI was lower in our study (11%) compared to 19.2% in the meta-analysis. This discrepancy may reflect differences in injury mechanisms, imaging protocols, or inclusion criteria between studies.
The most common antithrombotic treatments were LMWH alone, used in 45% of cases, followed by ASA alone (16.1%), and a combination of LMWH and ASA (12.9%). According to the ESVS guidelines, there is currently insufficient high-level evidence to support the use of one specific antithrombotic agent over another in the treatment of tVAI [
21]. Nonetheless, the evidence available tends to favor single-agent antiplatelet therapy, which has been associated with a lower risk of bleeding in the trauma setting. Given its safety and efficacy, low-dose ASA is recommended as first-line antithrombotic therapy for tVAI without active hemorrhage. Postdischarge complications related to clinical management were observed in 2 cases. One patient developed a gastrointestinal bleed from a gastric ulcer, resulting in a change of therapy from LMWH to ASA. In the other case, a patient who had undergone endovascular coiling experienced progression of ischemic stroke after discharge, which led to the initiation of antithrombotic treatment. A notable 21% of patients with tVAI were managed expectantly without specific pharmacological treatment (2 Biffl grade II and 9 Biffl grade IV). This rate slightly exceeds the 18% reported by Goyal et al. [
4] and underscores the individual treatments in clinical scenarios where bleeding risk, planned surgery, or overall injury burden precluded immediate antithrombotic therapy.
None of the tVAI cases experienced additional ischemic strokes after initiating antithrombotic therapy, during the 1-year follow-up. This finding suggests that routine follow-up CTA imaging may be unnecessary in the absence of risk factors, provided appropriate treatment is initiated, aligning with previous studies on follow-up strategies [
22]. However, from the small number of cases of tVAIs in our cohort, and that only half of the patients were followed up with CTA during the study period, conclusions regarding the necessity of follow-up CTA remain limited, and further studies are still warranted [
22,
23].
In contrast to our earlier work focusing on patients undergoing fixation for subaxial cervical spine injuries [
13], this study included a broader range of high-energy trauma patients, with severe trauma as indicated by high injury severity scores (NISS 27). In the current study of level 1 trauma, 85% of the tVAI cases had a concomitant cervical fracture. However, only 47% of them had an unstable fracture requiring fixation surgery. In our previous study on tVAI in patients undergoing fixation surgery for subaxial injuries, the cohort was a mix of all types of trauma severity, from level 1 trauma to same level falls in the elderly. This explains the difference in tVAI incidence of 14% in this study compared to the 7% in the previous work [
13]. This also underscores how trauma severity influences tVAI incidence and neurological outcomes.
The 40.3% stroke rate reported in this study surpasses most previously cited ranges of 0.5%–33% [
1,
4]. This elevated number may in part be due to an awareness of the risk for stroke in tVAI and the use of early MRI for ischemia detection, which was used more frequently in the 2018–2020 period. This enabled identification of both symptomatic and asymptomatic infarcts at a much earlier timeframe. Stroke resulting from tVAI in trauma is likely underreported. This underreporting can be attributed to challenges in early diagnosis, inconsistent screening protocols, and the often subtle or delayed presentation of symptoms. As shown in previous studies, many trauma-related strokes are radiologically apparent but clinically silent [
22,
24]. This distinction is especially relevant in posterior circulation strokes, which often mimic benign symptoms like dizziness or nausea and may be missed on early CT [
25]. Subsequently, the discrepancy between radiological and clinical stroke manifestations is clinically significant. While silent infarctions may go undetected, they can still impact long-term [
26,
27] cognitive and functional outcomes [
28,
29].
Screening criteria, initially largely developed for tCAI, have evolved to address the complexity of BCVI (including both tCAI and tVAI) and stroke. The original Denver criteria in 1996 were initially limited to a narrow subset of high-risk injuries. Subsequent revisions in 2005 and 2012 expanded to include craniofacial, thoracic, and broader cervical spine injuries [
26,
27]. Despite these updates, current protocols may still miss up to 30% of BCVI cases, underlining the need for continual reassessment of screening algorithms [
30]. There is a growing debate on screening strategies in trauma patients, particularly between universal and targeted approaches. In our study, CTA was increasingly adopted as part of the imaging protocol over the period examined from 2013 to 2020. Initially, CTA constituted only a fraction of the total WBCT examinations, accounting for 20% in 2013. However, a clear upward trend was observed, with the percentage of CTA steadily increasing each year. By 2017, CTA comprised 68.4% of the WBCT examinations, and from 2019 onward, it represented 100% of the cases. This shift reflects a transition in imaging strategy, driven by studies that have highlighted that a substantial number of BCVI could potentially be missed on initial WBCT when CTA was not included [
31]. Furthermore, incorporating CTA into the initial WBCT offers a time-efficient diagnostic pathway, as it allows for immediate assessment and management of BCVI, including anatomical description for interventional procedures. Without it, the patient may have already left the CT suite by the time the radiology report identifies injuries suspicious for the presence of BCVI, necessitating a return for additional imaging and potentially delaying treatment.
Universal screening, implemented at our level 1 trauma center since 2018, may maximize diagnostic yield but comes with drawbacks, including higher numbers NNI, increased radiation exposure, and elevated healthcare costs. Notably, despite this broad approach, the detection rate of tVAI during the universal screening period was not significantly higher than in the subsequent phase when selective screening based on expanded risk criteria was used. These findings suggest that a selective screening strategy may offer greater diagnostic efficiency while minimizing unnecessary interventions [
2,
12,
13,
26].
It has to be noted that, in Sweden, access to imaging has a low threshold, especially in the emergency setting, and universal screening approaches are thus possible without major effort. On the other hand, the generally lower in-hospital workload compared to other global regions, as well as the strong interdisciplinary focus of emergency care und multidisciplinary involvement in primary trauma care, makes implementing changes such as a sophisticated selective screening protocol possible.
It also has to be noted that, while generally safe, contrast-enhanced imaging carries a minor risk for adverse events, too. In a multicenter cohort of 196,081 iodinated contrast administrations, immediate hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 0.73% and severe events in 0.0087%, corresponding to numbers needed to harm (NNH) of ~137 (any immediate reaction) and ~11,500 (severe) [
32]. Among emergency department patients with chronic kidney disease, a propensity-matched analysis reported acute kidney injury rates of 13.2% with contrast versus 8.3% without (absolute risk increase 5.0%; 95% CI, 3.8–6.1), yielding an NNH of ~20 [
33].
Our data suggests that even within a universal screening protocol, all the tVAI cases occurred in patients presenting with known risk factors. This supports the potential feasibility of a more refined, risk-based screening approach in a general trauma population. This holds especially true given that smaller posterior circulation strokes, the most feared complication of tVAI, are often clinically silent and are typically not associated with increased risks of mortality [
13,
34]. While our findings are drawn from a level 1 trauma cohort—where the threshold for imaging is appropriately low to avoid missed injuries —the relatively high NNI also prompts consideration of whether a higher diagnostic accuracy could be achieved through more selective screening protocols. Although extrapolation to less severe trauma cases must be done with caution, our findings may serve as a basis for future investigation into whether selective screening strategies could be safely applied in lower-trauma settings, where the prevalence of tVAI is expected to be lower. Further prospective studies are needed to validate these approaches and to establish safe, evidence-based criteria for imaging in varying levels of trauma severity.
Although supported by a large level 1 hospital registry, our chart reviews were retrospective in nature, with the risks of missing data and potential for selection bias. In some parameters such as GCS there was substantial missing data. The selection of included cases was checked by a panel of 3 expert radiologists to verify presence of tVAI among all patients with reported diagnostic codes for cerebrovascular vascular injury. In addition, our study is single center. Thus, although our center exclusively covers a wide catchment area and thus enables an almost population-based study, our results are affected by inhouse treatment protocols. We were unable to access detailed information on concomitant injuries for patients without tVAI, which would have allowed an additional analysis of risk factors and risk stratification. Notably, our assessment of cerebrovascular ischemia was only based on radiological evidence of either CT findings or demarcated ischemia or clear diffusion restriction on MRI, as there were no structured neurological examinations such as NIHSS scores. This limits our findings regarding stroke rates to radiologically identified ischemic lesions in the posterior circulation area. Finally, interpretation of AIS and GOS scores in relation to tVAI is challenging in the context of multiple injuries, as the overall trauma burden may obscure the specific impact and outcomes related to tVAI. Future studies on tVAI should include validated quality of life instruments such as the Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale and EuroQol-5D to assess patient-centered outcomes comprehensively and long-term impact of posterior circulation strokes that are radiologically identified [
28,
29].