The impact of early administration of vasopressor agents for the resuscitation of severe hemorrhagic shock following blunt trauma.

BACKGROUND: When resuscitating patients with hemorrhagic shock following trauma, fluid volume restriction and permissive hypotension prior to bleeding control are emphasized along with the good outcome especially for penetrating trauma patients. However, evidence that these concepts apply well to the management of blunt trauma is lacking, and their use in blunt trauma remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the impact of vasopressor use in patients with blunt trauma in severe hemorrhagic shock. METHODS: In this single-center retrospective study, we reviewed records of blunt trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock and included patients with a probability of survival < 0.6. Vital signs on arrival, characteristics, examinations, concomitant injuries and severity, vasopressor use and dose, and volumes of crystalloids and blood infused were compared between survivors and non-survivors. Data are described as median (25-75% interquartile range) or number. RESULTS: Forty patients admitted from April 2014 to September 2019 were included. Median Injury Severity Score in survivors vs non-survivors was 41 (36-48) vs 45 (34-51) (p = 0.48), with no significant difference in probability of survival between the two groups (0.22 [0.12-0.48] vs 0.21 [0.08-0.46]; p = 0.93). Despite no significant difference in patient characteristics and injury severity, non-survivors were administered vasopressors significantly earlier after admission and at significantly higher doses. Total blood transfusion amount administered within 24 h after admission was significantly higher in survivors (8430 [5680-9320] vs 6540 [4550-7880] mL; p = 0.03). Max catecholamine index was significantly higher in non-survivors (2 [0-4] vs 14 [10-18]; p = 0.008), and administered vasopressors were terminated significantly earlier (12 [4-26] vs 34 [10-74] hours; p = 0.026) in survivors. Although the variables of severity of the patients had no significant differences, vasopressor use (Odds ratio [OR] = 21.32, 95% confident interval [CI]: 3.71-121.6; p = 0.0001) and its early administration (OR = 10.56, 95%CI: 1.90-58.5; p = 0.005) indicated significant higher risk of death in this study. CONCLUSION: Vasopressor administration and high-dose use for resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock following severe blunt trauma are potentially associated with increased mortality. Although the transfused volume of blood products tends to be increased when resuscitating these patients, early termination of vasopressor had better to be considered.

Can we predict delayed undesirable events after blunt injury to the torso visceral organs?

Aim: Blunt injuries to visceral organs have the potential to lead to delayed pseudoaneurysm formation or organ rupture, but current trauma and surgical guidelines do not recommend repetitive imaging. This study examined the incidence and timing of delayed undesirable events and established advisable timing for follow-up imaging and appropriate observational admission. Methods: Patients with blunt splenic (S), liver (L), or kidney (K) injury treated with non-operative management (NOM) in our institution were included and retrospectively reviewed. Results: From January 2013 to January 2017, 57 patients were admitted with documented blunt visceral organ injuries and 22 patients were excluded. Of 35 patients (L, 10; S, 17; K, 6; L & S, 1; S & K, 1) treated with NOM, 14 (L, 4; S, 9; K, 1) patients underwent transcatheter arterial embolization. Delayed undesirable events occurred in four patients: three patients with splenic pseudoaneurysm on hospital day 6-7 and one patient with splenic delayed rupture on hospital day 7. The second follow-up computed tomography scan carried out 1-2 days after admission did not show any significant findings that could help predict undesirable results of delayed events. The patients with delayed events had longer continuous abdominal pain than that of event-free patients (P = 0.04). Conclusions: Undesirable delayed events were recognized on follow-up computed tomography scans in 11.4% of NOM patients at hospital day 6-7 and tended to be associated with high-grade splenic injuries and continuous symptoms. Repetitive screening of these patients 6-7 days after injury might be warranted because of the potential risk of delayed events.

Surgical treatment for thoracoabdominal intra-aortic thrombus with multiple infarctions: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Mobile intra-aortic thrombus without atherosclerosis, aneurysm, or congenital coagulopathy is very rare, and there are few reports especially in young or middle-aged patients. Furthermore, there are presently no established guidelines or common strategies for the treatment of mobile intra-aortic thrombus. In this case report, we describe the first case of intra-aortic thrombus caused by secondary erythrocytosis and describe the recommended treatment strategy for intra-aortic thrombus. CASE PRESENTATION: We report a case of an independent 40-year-old Asian man with a current history of heavy cigarette smoking who had sudden onset of abdominal and lumbar pain. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography revealed partial renal and splenic infarction, and he was transferred to our hospital. He also had a large mural thrombus in his thoracoabdominal aorta. Blood analysis on admission showed a hemoglobin level of 19.4 g/dL and hematocrit of 54.3 %; his international normalized ratio of prothrombin time, fibrin degradation products, and activated partial thromboplastin time levels were 1.02, 2.8 µg/ml, and 26.9 seconds respectively. We could find no abnormalities in protein C and protein S activity levels. Lupus anticoagulant and anti-cardiolipin antibody were both negative. He had no past medical history of arrhythmia and we found no signs of an arrhythmic event during admission. We promptly started anticoagulant therapy, but as the thrombus seemed at high risk of causing further critical infarction, we performed emergency aortic thrombectomy using partial extracorporeal circulation. To prevent dissemination of the thrombus during extracorporeal circulation, we first clamped his proximal and distal aorta on either side of the thrombus just before initiating extracorporeal circulation. After the aortotomy we removed a 14-cm length of intra-aortic thrombus without residual lesion. He was discharged from our hospital 20 days after surgery. From the results of his blood analysis, we considered the only cause of this thrombus was secondary erythrocytosis, which was probably induced by his current heavy cigarette smoking. CONCLUSION: We are the first to report such a thrombosis caused by secondary erythrocytosis and conclude that once the diagnosis of intra-aortic thrombus with systemic embolism is clear, emergency surgical removal of such a thrombus must be considered to prevent further embolic complications.