Extracranial/Intracranial Vascular Bypass in the Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer ‐ Related Carotid Blowout Syndrome

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS To investigate the endovascular intervention or extracranial/intracranial (EC/IC) vascular bypass in the management of patients with head and neck cancer-related carotid blowout syndrome (CBS). STUDY DESIGN Retrospective case series. METHODS Retrospective analysis of clinical data of patients with head and neck cancer-related CBS treated by endovascular intervention and/or EC/IC vascular bypass, analysis of its bleeding control, neurological complications, and survival results. RESULTS Thrity-seven patients were included. Twenty-five were associated with external carotid artery (ECA); twelve were associated with internal or common carotid artery (ICA/CCA). All patients with ECA hemorrhage were treated with endovascular embolization. Of the 12 patients with ICA/CCA hemorrhage, 9 underwent EC/IC bypass, 1 underwent endovascular embolization, and 3 underwent endovascular stenting. For patients with ECA-related CBS, the median survival was 6 months, and the 90-day, 1-year, and 2-year survival rates were 67.1%, 44.7%, and 33.6%, respectively; the estimated rebleeding risk at 1-month, 6-month, and 2-year was 7.1%, 20.0%, and 31.6%, respectively. For patients with ICA/CCA-related CBS, the median survival was 22.5 months, and the 90-day, 1-year, and 2-year survival rates were 92.3%, 71.8%, and 41.0%, respectively; the estimated rebleeding risk at 1 month, 6 months, and 2 years is 7.7%,15.4%, and 15.4%, respectively. ICA/CCA-related CBS patients have significantly longer survival time and lower risk of rebleeding, which may be related to the more use of EC/IC vascular bypass as a definite treatment. CONCLUSIONS For patients with ICA/CCA-related CBS, if there is more stable hemodynamics, longer expected survival, EC/IC vascular bypass is preferred. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 4 Laryngoscope, 131:1548-1556, 2021.