Management of adult renal trauma: a practice management guideline from the eastern association for the surgery of trauma.

BACKGROUND: The kidney is the most frequently injured component of the genitourinary system, accounting for 5% of all trauma cases. Several guidelines by different societies address the management of urological trauma. However, unanswered questions remain regarding optimal use of angioembolization in hemodynamically stable patients, indications for operative exploration of stable retroperitoneal hematomas and renal salvage techniques in the setting of hemodynamic instability, and imaging practices for patients undergoing non-operative management. We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and developed evidence-based recommendations to answer these questions in both blunt and penetrating renal trauma. METHODS: The working group formulated four population, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO) questions regarding the following topics: (1) angioembolization (AE) usage in hemodynamically stable patients with evidence of ongoing bleeding; (2) surgical approach to stable zone II hematomas (exploration vs. no exploration) in hemodynamically unstable patients and (3) surgical technique (nephrectomy vs. kidney preservation) for expanding zone II hematomas in hemodynamically unstable patients; (4) frequency of repeat imaging (routine or symptom based) in high-grade traumatic renal injuries. A systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available evidence was performed. RevMan 5 (Cochran Collaboration) and GRADEpro (Grade Working Group) software were used. Recommendations were voted on by working group members and concurrence was obtained for each final recommendation. RESULTS: A total of 20 articles were identified and analyzed. Two prospective studies were encountered; the majority were retrospective, single-institution studies. Not all outcomes projected by PICO questions were reported in all studies. Meta-analysis was performed for all PICO questions except PICO 3 secondary to the discrepant patient populations included in those studies. PICO 1 had the greatest number of articles included in the meta-analysis with nine studies; yet, due to differences in study design, no critical outcomes emerged; similar differences among a smaller set of articles prevented observation of critical outcomes for PICO 4. Analyses of PICOs 2 and 3 favored a non-invasive or minimally invasive approach in-line with current international practice trends. CONCLUSION: In hemodynamically stable adult patients with clinical or radiographic evidence of ongoing bleeding, no recommendation could be made regarding the role of AE vs. observation. In hemodynamically unstable adult patients, we conditionally recommend no renal exploration vs. renal exploration in stable zone II hematomas. In hemodynamically unstable adult patients, we conditionally recommend kidney preserving techniques vs. nephrectomy in expanding zone II hematomas. No recommendation could be made for the optimal timing of repeat imaging in high grade renal injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Guideline; systematic review, level III.

Thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry in bleeding patients with coagulopathy: Practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the immediate need for specific blood product transfusions in acutely bleeding patients is challenging. Clinical assessment and commonly used coagulation tests are inaccurate and time-consuming. The goal of this practice management guideline was to evaluate the role of the viscoelasticity tests, which are thromboelastography (TEG) and rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), in the management of acutely bleeding trauma, surgical, and critically ill patients. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses of manuscripts comparing TEG/ROTEM with non-TEG/ROTEM-guided blood products transfusions strategies were performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology was applied to assess the level of evidence and create recommendations for TEG/ROTEM-guided blood product transfusions in adult trauma, surgical, and critically ill patients. RESULTS: Using TEG/ROTEM-guided blood transfusions in acutely bleeding trauma, surgical, and critically ill patients was associated with a tendency to fewer blood product transfusions in all populations. Thromboelastography/ROTEM-guided transfusions were associated with a reduced number of additional invasive hemostatic interventions (angioembolic, endoscopic, or surgical) in surgical patients. Thromboelastography/ROTEM-guided transfusions were associated with a reduction in mortality in trauma patients. CONCLUSION: In patients with ongoing hemorrhage and concern for coagulopathy, we conditionally recommend using TEG/ROTEM-guided transfusions, compared with traditional coagulation parameters, to guide blood component transfusions in each of the following three groups: adult trauma patients, adult surgical patients, and adult patients with critical illness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis, level III.

Evidence-based review of trauma center care and routine palliative care processes for geriatric trauma patients; A collaboration from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Patient Assessment Committee, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Geriatric Trauma Committee, and the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Guidelines Committee.

BACKGROUND: Despite an aging population and increasing number of geriatric trauma patients annually, gaps in our understanding of best practices for geriatric trauma patients persist. We know that trauma center care improves outcomes for injured patients generally, and palliative care processes can improve outcomes for disease-specific conditions, and our goal was to determine effectiveness of these interventions on outcomes for geriatric trauma patients. METHODS: A priori questions were created regarding outcomes for patients 65 years or older with respect to care at trauma centers versus nontrauma centers and use of routine palliative care processes. A query of MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE was performed. Letters to the editor, case reports, book chapters, and review articles were excluded. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to perform a systematic review and create recommendations. RESULTS: We reviewed seven articles relevant to trauma center care and nine articles reporting results on palliative care processes as they related to geriatric trauma patients. Given data quality and limitations, we conditionally recommend trauma center care for the severely injured geriatric trauma patients but are unable to make a recommendation on the question of routine palliative care processes for geriatric trauma patients. CONCLUSIONS: As our older adult population increases, injured geriatric patients will continue to pose challenges for care, such as comorbidities or frailty. We found that trauma center care was associated with improved outcomes for geriatric trauma patients in most studies and that utilization of early palliative care consultations was generally associated with improved secondary outcomes, such as length of stay; however, inconsistency and imprecision prevented us from making a clear recommendation for this question. As caregivers, we should ensure adequate support for trauma systems and palliative care processes in our institutions and communities and continue to support robust research to study these and other aspects of geriatric trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review/guideline, level III.

No correlation between lower extremity deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism proportions in trauma: a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of surveillance on deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) rates, the efficacy of chemoprophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis, and the relationship between DVT and PE. METHODS: A 23 year, systematic literature review was performed in PubMed. Twenty publications with > 13,000 patients were reviewed. Analyzed traits included: DVT surveillance utilization, the total number of patients included in each study, the number of patients developing DVT and/or PE, chemoprophylaxis and mechanical prophylaxis utilization. When event proportions from individual studies were combined, a weighted mean proportion was computed based on the size of each individual cohort. Combined event proportions were compared with other combined event proportions, according to differences in intervention. Inter-group event proportions were compared using Chi-Square or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. RESULTS: DVT rates increase with surveillance (10.7% vs. 2.5%, p < 0.001). PE rates were similar regardless of surveillance (p = 1.0). Chemoprophylaxis lowered both DVT rates (8.2% vs. 10.7%; p < 0.0001) and PE rates (1.2% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.0050). Mechanical prophylaxis did not decrease DVT rates (10.2% vs. 11.5%; p = 0.2980) or PE rates (1.7% vs. 1.6%; p = 1.0). In patients with neither chemoprophylaxis nor mechanical prophylaxis, DVT rate was 11.5%, PE was 1.6%. When chemoprophylaxis and/or mechanical prophylaxis were given, DVT rate was 8.6% (p < 0.0189) and PE was 1.3% (p = 0.4462). PE proportions were not decreased with mechanical prophylaxis or surveillance. DVT and PE rates were not associated (p = 0.7574). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that PE is not associated with lower extremity DVT in adult trauma patients.