RESUMEN
Introduction: Whole blood (WB) transfusion represents a promising resuscitation strategy for trauma patients. However, a paucity of data surrounding the optimal incorporation of WB into resuscitation strategies persists. We hypothesized that traumatically injured patients who received a greater proportion of WB compared with blood product components during their resuscitative efforts would have improved early mortality outcomes and decreased transfusion requirements compared with those who received a greater proportion of blood product components. Methods: Retrospective review from our Level 1 trauma center of trauma patients during their initial resuscitation (2019-2022) was performed. WB to packed red blood cell ratios (WB:RBC) were assigned to patients based on their respective blood product resuscitation at 1, 2, 3, and 24 hours from presentation. Multivariable regression models were constructed to assess the relationship of WB:RBC to 4 and 24-hour mortality, and 24-hour transfusion requirements. Results: 390 patients were evaluated (79% male, median age of 33 years old, 48% penetrating injury rate, and a median Injury Severity Score of 27). Overall mortality at 4 hours was 9%, while 24-hour mortality was 12%. A significantly decreased 4-hour mortality was demonstrated in patients who displayed a WB:RBC≥1 at 1 hour (5.9% vs. 12.3%; OR 0.17, p=0.015), 2 hours (5.5% vs. 13%; OR 0.16, p=0.019), and 3 hours (5.5% vs. 13%, OR 0.18, p<0.01), while a decreased 24-hour mortality was displayed in those with a WB:RBC≥1 at 24 hours (7.9% vs. 14.6%, OR 0.21, p=0.01). Overall 24-hour transfusion requirements were significantly decreased within the WB:RBC≥1 cohort (12.1 units vs. 24.4 units, p<0.01). Conclusion: Preferential WB transfusion compared with a balanced transfusion strategy during the early resuscitative period was associated with a lower 4 and 24-hour mortality, as well as decreased 24-hour transfusion requirements, in trauma patients. Future prospective studies are warranted to determine the optimal use of WB in trauma. Level of evidence: Level III/therapeutic.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Rib fractures are common among trauma patients and may result in significant morbidity and mortality. There are numerous treatment options, but ideal management is unclear. Delivery of local anesthetic via an analgesia catheter for continuous intercostal nerve blockade offers an attractive potential option for management of patients with rib fractures. METHODS: We performed a single-center, retrospective case-control analysis of trauma patients with multiple rib fractures from 2016 to 2018, comparing patients managed with continuous intercostal nerve blockade with standard care. Matching was performed in a 2:1 ratio by Injury Severity Score, age, and gender. Respiratory morbidity potentially secondary to rib fractures, including unplanned intubation, failure of extubation, need for tracheostomy, pneumonia, or mortality, were all identified and included. Potential complications due to catheter insertion were identified to be recorded. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day hospital-free days. RESULTS: Nine hundred and thirty-three patients were eligible for analysis, with 48 managed using intercostal blockade compared with 96 matching controls. No complications of intercostal blockade were identified during the study period. Controls demonstrated fewer rib fractures (6.60±4.11 vs. 9.3±3.73, p=0.001) and fewer flail segments (0.8±1.76 vs. 2.0±2.94, p=0.02). Those managed with intercostal blockade demonstrated significantly more 30-day hospital-free days (15.9±6.43 vs. 13.2±9.94, p=0.048), less incidence of pneumonia (4.2% vs. 16.7%, p=0.03), and lower hospital mortality (2.1% vs. 13.5%, p=0.03). When adjusting for number of rib fractures and number of flail segments, use of continuous intercostal nerve blockade was significantly associated with lower hospital mortality (OR 0.10; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.91), pneumonia (OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.76), or need for tracheostomy (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.83). DISCUSSION: The addition of continuous intercostal nerve blockade may help to improve outcomes in patients with multiple rib fractures compared with standard care alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management; level IV.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To report results of a national survey of provider attitudes, observations, and opinions regarding the use of extracorporeal membranous oxygenation (ECMO) to manage severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in trauma patients. DESIGN: A survey was created to query providers on the use of ECMO in trauma, as well as general management principals related to care of the patient with refractory hypoxic respiratory failure. The survey was sent to all members of Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST). Once completed, the survey was returned to the University of Alabama at Birmingham and results were analyzed. SETTING/PATIENTS: Trauma patients with refractory ARDS. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Respondents were from 37 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 56.9% reported institutional ECMO capabilities, but only 45.2% reported using ECMO for trauma patients. Most respondents (90.2%) reported ECMO use in less than or equal to five trauma patients per year. 20.9% think there is not enough data to support its use in trauma but only 4.7% would absolutely not consider ECMO use for trauma patients. Ranking the preferred modality of treatments for refractory ARDS from most to least preferable is as follows: airway pressure release ventilation, bilevel ventilation, paralysis, prone positioning, inhaled nitric oxide, epoprostenol, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, corticosteroids, surfactant. CONCLUSIONS: ARDS has a high mortality among trauma patients. Despite its utility in treating severe ARDS and other pulmonary disease processes, ECMO has not been universally embraced by the trauma community. There are an increasing number of studies that suggest that ECMO is a safe and viable treatment option for trauma patients with ARDS. Based on the results of this survey, ECMO use remains limited by trauma providers that care for patients with refractory hypoxic respiratory failure and ARDS, likely due to a combination of knowledge gaps and lack of access to ECMO. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as salvage therapy for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome is gaining greater acceptance among trauma intensivists. The objective of this study was to review ECMO usage in trauma patients in the USA. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from years 2002 to 2012 was queried for patients aged 15 and older treated with ECMO who had one or more acute traumatic injuries as defined by the International Diagnostic Codes, Ninth Edition (ICD-9). The primary outcomes of interest were incidence of ECMO and overall inpatient mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1347 patients were identified in the NIS database who had both ECMO performed and ICD-9 codes consistent with trauma. Patients were predominantly aged 15 to 29 years (31.4%) and were male (65.5%). The incidence of ECMO for patients after traumatic injuries has increased 66-fold during the 10-year period. In-hospital mortality was 48.0% overall, with a decreasing trend during the study period that approached statistical significance (p=0.06). DISCUSSION: Although ECMO use in patients in the post-trauma setting remains controversial, there is an increasing trend to use ECMO nationwide, suggesting an increasing acceptance and/or increased availability at trauma centers. Given the decrease in mortality during the study period, ECMO as a salvage method in trauma patients remains a potentially viable option. Evaluation in a prospective manner may clarify risks and benefits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, epidemiological.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Missed injury of the diaphragm may result in hernia formation, enteric strangulation, and death. Compounding the problem, diaphragmatic injuries are rare and difficult to diagnose with standard imaging. As such, for patients with high suspicion of injury, operative exploration remains the gold standard for diagnosis. As no current data currently exist, we sought to perform a pragmatic evaluation of the diagnostic ability of 256-slice multidetector CT scanners for diagnosing diaphragmatic injuries after trauma. METHODS: A retrospective review of trauma patients from 2011 to 2018 was performed at an American College of Surgeons-verified level 1 trauma center to identify the diagnostic accuracy of CT scan for acute diaphragm injury. All patients undergoing abdominal operation were eligible for inclusion. Two separate levels of CT scan technology, 64-slice and 256-slice, were used during this time period. The prospective imaging reports were reviewed for the diagnosis of diaphragm injury and the results confirmed with the operative record. Injuries were graded using operative description per the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma guidelines. RESULTS: One thousand and sixty-eight patients underwent operation after preoperative CT scan. Acute diaphragm injury was identified intraoperatively in 14.7%. Most with diaphragmatic injury underwent 64-slice CT (134 of 157, 85.4%). Comparing patients receiving 64-slice or 256-slice CT scan, there was no difference in the side of injury (left side 57.5% vs. 69.6%, p=0.43) or median injury grade (3 (3, 3) vs. 3 (2, 3), p=0.65). Overall sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the 256-slice CT were similar to the 64-slice CT (56.5% vs. 45.5%, 93.7% vs. 98.1%, and 89.0% vs. 90.2%). DISCUSSION: The new 256-slice multidetector CT scanner fails to sufficiently improve diagnostic accuracy over the previous technology. Patients with suspicion of diaphragm injury should undergo operative intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I, diagnostic test or criteria.
