Observation-first versus angioembolization-first approach in stable patients with blunt liver trauma: A WTA multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies evaluating observation versus angioembolization (AE) for blunt liver injuries (BLT) with contrast extravasation (CE) on computed tomography imaging have yielded inconsistent conclusions, primarily due to limitations in single-center and/or retrospective study design. Therefore, this multicenter study aims to compare an observation versus AE-first approach for BLT, hypothesizing decreased liver-related complications (LRCs) with observation. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective observational study (2019-2021) across 23 centers. Adult patients with BLT + CE undergoing observation or AE within 8 hours of arrival were included. The primary outcome was LRCs, defined as perihepatic fluid collection, bile leak/biloma, pseudoaneurysm, hepatic necrosis, and/or hepatic abscess. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate risk factors associated with LRCs. RESULTS: From 128 patients presenting with BLT + CE on imaging, 71 (55.5%) underwent observation-first and 57 (45.5%) AE-first management. Both groups were comparable in age, vitals, mechanism of injury, and shock index (all p > 0.05), however the AE group had increased frequency of American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Grade IV injuries (51.0% vs. 22.0%, p = 0.002). The AE cohort demonstrated increased rates of in-hospital LRCs (36.8% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.038), emergency department representation (25.0% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.025), and hospital readmission for LRCs (12.3% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.012). However, the two cohorts had similar mortality rates (5.7% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.912). After adjusting for age, ISS, and grade of liver injury, an AE-first approach had a similar associated risk of LRCs compared with observation-first management (odds ratio, 1.949; 95% confidence interval, 0.673-5.643; p = 0.219). CONCLUSION: Patients with blunt liver injury and CE undergoing an observation-first approach were associated with a similar adjusted risk of LRCs and rate of mortality compared with AE-first approach. Overall, this calls for reevaluation of the role of routine AE in blunt liver trauma patients with CE. Future prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, Level IV.

High-grade liver injuries with contrast extravasation managed initially with interventional radiology versus observation: A secondary analysis of a WTA multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: High-grade liver injuries with extravasation (HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav) are associated with morbidity/mortality. For low-grade injuries, an observation (OBS) first-strategy is beneficial over initial angiography (IR), however, it is unclear if OBS is safe for HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav. Therefore, we evaluated the management of HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients, hypothesizing IR patients will have decreased rates of operation and mortality. METHODS: HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients managed with initial OBS or IR were included. The primary outcome was need for operation. Secondary outcomes included liver-related complications (LRCs) and mortality. RESULTS: From 59 patients, 23 (39.0%) were managed with OBS and 36 (61.0%) with IR. 75% of IR patients underwent angioembolization, whereas 13% of OBS patients underwent any IR, all undergoing angioembolization. IR patients had an increased rate of operation (13.9% vs. 0%, p â€‹= â€‹0.049), but no difference in LRCs (44.4% vs. 43.5%) or mortality (5.6% vs. 8.7%) versus OBS patients (both p â€‹> â€‹0.05). CONCLUSION: Over 60% of patients were managed with IR initially. IR patients had an increased rate of operation yet similar rates of LRCs and mortality, suggesting initial OBS reasonable in appropriately selected HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients.

An observation-first strategy for liver injuries with "blush" on computed tomography is safe and effective.

INTRODUCTION: The management of liver injuries in hemodynamically stable patients is variable and includes primary treatment strategies of observation (OBS), angiography (interventional radiology [IR]) with angioembolization (AE), or operative intervention (OR). We aimed to evaluate the management of patients with liver injuries with active extravasation on computed tomography (CT) imaging, hypothesizing that AE will have more complications without improving outcomes compared with OBS. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Patients who underwent CT within 2 hours after arrival with extravasation (e.g., blush) on imaging were included. Exclusion criteria included cirrhosis, nontraumatic hemorrhage, transfers from outside facilities, and pregnancy. No hemodynamic exclusion criteria were used. The primary outcome was liver-specific complications. Secondary outcomes include length of stay and mortality. Angioembolization patients were compared with patients treated without AE. Propensity score matching was used to match based on penetrating mechanism, liver injury severity, arrival vital signs, and early transfusion. RESULTS: Twenty-three centers enrolled 192 patients. Forty percent of patients (n = 77) were initially OBS. Eleven OBS patients (14%) failed nonoperative management and went to IR or OR. Sixty-one patients (32%) were managed with IR, and 42 (69%) of these had AE as an initial intervention. Fifty-four patients (28%) went to OR+/- IR. After propensity score matching (n = 34 per group), there was no difference in baseline characteristics between AE and OBS. The AE group experienced more complications with a higher rate of IR-placed drains for abscess or biloma (22% vs. 0%, p = 0.01) and an increased overall length of stay ( p = 0.01). No difference was noted in transfusions or mortality. CONCLUSION: Observation is highly effective with few requiring additional interventions. Angioembolization was associated with higher rate of secondary drain placement for abscesses or biloma. Given this, a trial of OBS and avoidance of empiric AE may be warranted in hemodynamically stable, liver-injured patient with extravasation on CT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.