RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: One third of organ donors suffer catastrophic brain injury (CBI). There are no standard guidelines for the management of traumatic CBI prior to brain death, and not all trauma centers have institutional CBI guidelines. In addition, there is high variability in management between institutions with guidelines. Catastrophic brain injury guidelines vary and may include various combinations of hormone therapy, vasopressors, fluid resuscitation, and other practices. We hypothesized that centers with CBI guidelines have higher organ donation rates than those without. METHODS: This prospective, observational EAST-sponsored multicenter trial included adult (18+ years old) traumatic-mechanism CBI patients at 33 level I and II trauma centers from January 2022 to May 2023. Catastrophic brain injury was defined as a brain injury causing loss of function above the brain stem and subsequent death. Cluster analysis with linear mixed-effects model including UNOS regions and hospital size by bed count was used to determine whether CBI guidelines are associated with organ donation. RESULTS: A total of 790 CBI patients were included in this analysis. In unadjusted comparison, CBI guideline centers had higher rates of organ donation and use of steroids, whole blood, and hormone therapy. In a linear mixed-effects model, CBI guidelines were not associated with organ donation. Registered organ donor status, steroid hormones, and vasopressin were associated with increased relative risk of donation. CONCLUSION: There is high variability in management of CBI, even at centers with CBI guidelines in place. While the use of institutional CBI guidelines was not associated with increased organ donation, guidelines in this study were not identical. Hormone replacement with steroids and vasopressin was associated with increased donation. Hormone resuscitation is a common feature of CBI guidelines. Further analysis of individual practices that increase organ donation after CBI may allow for more effective guidelines and an overall increase in donation to decrease the long waiting periods for organ transplant recipients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic; Level III.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Leak following surgical repair of traumatic duodenal injuries results in prolonged hospitalization and oftentimes nil per os(NPO) treatment. Parenteral nutrition(PN) has known morbidity; however, duodenal leak(DL) patients often have complex injuries and hospital courses resulting in barriers to enteral nutrition(EN). We hypothesized EN alone would be associated with 1)shorter duration until leak closure and 2)less infectious complications and shorter hospital length of stay(HLOS) compared to PN. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a retrospective, multicenter study from 35 Level-1 trauma centers, including patients >14 years-old who underwent surgery for duodenal injuries(1/2010-12/2020) and endured post-operative DL. The study compared nutrition strategies: EN vs PN vs EN + PN using Chi-Square and Kruskal-Wallis tests; if significance was found pairwise comparison or Dunn's test were performed. RESULTS: There were 113 patients with DL: 43 EN, 22 PN, and 48 EN + PN. Patients were young(median age 28 years-old) males(83.2%) with penetrating injuries(81.4%). There was no difference in injury severity or critical illness among the groups, however there were more pancreatic injuries among PN groups. EN patients had less days NPO compared to both PN groups(12 days[IQR23] vs 40[54] vs 33[32],p = <0.001). Time until leak closure was less in EN patients when comparing the three groups(7 days[IQR14.5] vs 15[20.5] vs 25.5[55.8],p = 0.008). EN patients had less intra-abdominal abscesses, bacteremia, and days with drains than the PN groups(all p < 0.05). HLOS was shorter among EN patients vs both PN groups(27 days[24] vs 44[62] vs 45[31],p = 0.001). When controlling for predictors of leak, regression analysis demonstrated EN was associated with shorter HLOS(ß -24.9, 95%CI -39.0 to -10.7,p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EN was associated with a shorter duration until leak closure, less infectious complications, and shorter length of stay. Contrary to some conventional thought, PN was not associated with decreased time until leak closure. We therefore suggest EN should be the preferred choice of nutrition in patients with duodenal leaks whenever feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Duodenal leak is a feared complication of repair, and innovative complex repairs with adjunctive measures (CRAM) were developed to decrease both leak occurrence and severity when leaks occur. Data on the association of CRAM and duodenal leak are sparse, and its impact on duodenal leak outcomes is nonexistent. We hypothesized that primary repair alone (PRA) would be associated with decreased duodenal leak rates; however, CRAM would be associated with improved recovery and outcomes when leaks do occur. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 Level 1 trauma centers included patients older than 14 years with operative, traumatic duodenal injuries (January 2010 to December 2020). The study sample compared duodenal operative repair strategy: PRA versus CRAM (any repair plus pyloric exclusion, gastrojejunostomy, triple tube drainage, duodenectomy). RESULTS: The sample (N = 861) was primarily young (33 years) men (84%) with penetrating injuries (77%); 523 underwent PRA and 338 underwent CRAM. Complex repairs with adjunctive measures were more critically injured than PRA and had higher leak rates (CRAM 21% vs. PRA 8%, p < 0.001). Adverse outcomes were more common after CRAM with more interventional radiology drains, prolonged nothing by mouth and length of stay, greater mortality, and more readmissions than PRA (all p < 0.05). Importantly, CRAM had no positive impact on leak recovery; there was no difference in number of operations, drain duration, nothing by mouth duration, need for interventional radiology drainage, hospital length of stay, or mortality between PRA leak versus CRAM leak patients (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, CRAM leaks had longer antibiotic duration, more gastrointestinal complications, and longer duration until leak resolution (all p < 0.05). Primary repair alone was associated with 60% lower odds of leak, whereas injury grades II to IV, damage control, and body mass index had higher odds of leak (all p < 0.05). There were no leaks among patients with grades IV and V injuries repaired by PRA. CONCLUSION: Complex repairs with adjunctive measures did not prevent duodenal leaks and, moreover, did not reduce adverse sequelae when leaks did occur. Our results suggest that CRAM is not a protective operative duodenal repair strategy, and PRA should be pursued for all injury grades when feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.