Who Is at Risk of Death after Renal Trauma? An Analysis of Thirty-Day Mortality after 1,799 Cases of Renal Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the study was to report the 30-day mortality (30DM) after renal trauma and identify the risk factors associated with death. METHODS: The TRAUMAFUF project was a retrospective multi-institutional study including all patients with renal trauma admitted to 17 French hospitals between 2005 and 2015. The included population focused on patients of all age groups who underwent renal trauma during the study period. The primary outcome was death within 30 days following trauma. The multivariate logistic regression model with a stepwise backward elimination was used to identify predictive factors of 30DM. RESULTS: Data on 1,799 renal trauma were recorded over the 10-year period. There were 59 deaths within 30 days of renal trauma, conferring a 30DM rate of 3.27%. Renal trauma was directly involved in 5 deaths (8.5% of all deaths, 0.3% of all renal trauma). Multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis revealed that age >40 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.18; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20-3.99; p = 0.01), hemodynamic instability (OR 4.67; 95% CI: 2.49-9; p < 0.001), anemia (OR 3.89; 95% CI: 1.94-8.37; p < 0.001), bilateral renal trauma (OR 6.77; 95% CI: 2.83-15.61; p < 0.001), arterial contrast extravasation (OR 2.09; 95% CI: 1.09-3.96; p = 0.02), and concomitant visceral and bone injuries (OR 6.57; 95% CI: 2.41-23.14; p < 0.001) were independent predictors of 30DM. CONCLUSION: Our large multi-institutional study supports that the 30DM of 3.27% after renal trauma is due to the high degree of associated injuries and was rarely a consequence of renal trauma alone. Age >40 years, hemodynamic instability, anemia, bilateral renal trauma, arterial contrast extravasation, and concomitant visceral and bone lesions were predictors of death. These results can help clinicians to identify high-risk patients.

Impact of Hospital Volume on the Outcomes of Renal Trauma Management.

BACKGROUND: Some health care systems have set up referral trauma centers to centralize expertise to improve trauma management. There is scant and controversial evidence regarding the impact of provider's volume on the outcomes of trauma management. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of hospital volume on the outcomes of renal trauma management in a European health care system. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective multicenter study, including all patients admitted for renal trauma in 17 French hospitals between 2005 and 2015, was conducted. INTERVENTION: Nephrectomy, angioembolization, or nonoperative management. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Four quartiles according to the caseload per year: low volume (eight or fewer per year), moderate volume (nine to 13 per year), high volume (14-25/yr), and very high volume (≥26/yr). The primary endpoint was failure of nonoperative management defined as any interventional radiology or surgical procedure needed within the first 30 d after admission. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 1771 patients with renal trauma, 1704 were included. Nonoperative management was more prevalent in the very-high- and low-volume centers (p = 0.02). In a univariate analysis, very high hospital volume was associated with a lower risk of nonoperative management failure than low (odds ratio [OR] = 0.54; p = 0.05) and moderate (OR = 0.48; p = 0.02) hospital volume. There were fewer nephrectomies in the high- and very-high-volume groups (p = 0.003). In a multivariate analysis, very high volume remained associated with a lower risk of nonoperative management failure than low (OR = 0.48; p = 0.04) and moderate (OR = 0.42; p = 0.01) volume. Study limitations include all the shortcomings inherent to its retrospective multicenter design. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter study, management of renal trauma varied according to hospital volume. There were lower rates of nephrectomy and failure of nonoperative management in very-high-volume centers. These results raise the question of centralizing the management of renal trauma, which is currently not the case in our health care system. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this study, management of renal trauma varied according to hospital volume. Very-high-volume centers had lower rates of nephrectomy and failure of nonoperative management.

Factors Predictive of Selective Angioembolization Failure for Moderate- to High-grade Renal Trauma: A French Multi-institutional Study.

BACKGROUND: Angiography with selective angioembolization (SAE) is safe and effective in addressing bleeding in patients with renal trauma. However, there are no validated criteria to predict SAE efficacy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate factors predictive of SAE failure after moderate- to high-grade renal trauma. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: TRAUMAFUF was a retrospective multi-institutional study including all patients who underwent upfront SAE for renal trauma in 17 French hospitals between 2005 and 2015. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was SAE efficacy, defined as the absence of repeat SAE, salvage nephrectomy, and/or death for each patient. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Out of 1770 consecutive patients with renal trauma, 170 (9.6%) with moderate- to high-grade renal trauma underwent SAE. Overall upfront SAE was successful in 131 patients (77%) and failed in 39 patients: six patients died after the embolization, ten underwent repeat SAE, 22 underwent open nephrectomy, and one underwent open surgical exploration. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, gross hematuria (odds ratio [OR] 3.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-8.49; p=0.015), hemodynamic instability (OR 3.29, 95% CI 1.37-8.22; p=0.009), grade V trauma (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.06-7.72; p=0.036), and urinary extravasation (OR 3.49, 95% CI 1.42-8.83; p=0.007) were predictors of SAE failure. The success rate was 64.7% (22/34) for patients with grade V trauma and 59.6% (31/52) for those with hemodynamic instability. The study was limited by its retrospective design and the lack of a control group managed with either surgery or surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: We found that gross hematuria, hemodynamic instability, grade V trauma, and urinary extravasation were significant predictors of SAE failure. However, success rates in these subgroups remained relatively high, suggesting that SAE might be appropriate for those patients as well. PATIENT SUMMARY: Selective angioembolization (SAE) is a useful alternative to nephrectomy to address bleeding in patients with renal trauma. Currently, there are no validated criteria to predict SAE efficacy. We found that gross hematuria, hemodynamic instability, grade V trauma, and urinary extravasation were significant predictors of SAE failure.

Association between acute graft pyelonephritis and kidney graft survival: A single-center observational study.

The association between acute graft pyelonephritis (AGPN) and graft failure in kidney transplant recipients (KTR) remains controversial. In this single-center observational study, we aimed to assess the incidence of AGPN as a time-dependent posttransplantation event. We also examined the association between the diagnosis of AGPN and graft outcomes. In total, we evaluated 1480 patients who underwent kidney transplantation between January 2007 and December 2017. During a median follow-up of 5.04 years, we observed 297 AGPN episodes that occurred in 158 KTR. To evaluate the association between AGPN and clinical outcomes, we performed Cox proportional hazards regression analyses in which AGPN was entered as a time-dependent covariate. AGPN was independently associated with an increased risk of graft loss (hazard ratio = 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05-2.64, p < .03) and a persistently decreased eGFR (fixed effect on intercept: -2.29 ml/min/1.73 m2 ; 95% CI: from -3.23 to -1.35, p < .01). However, neither mortality nor biopsy-proven acute rejection was found to correlate with AGPN. Moreover, recurrent AGPN episodes did not appear to have an additive detrimental impact on graft loss. These data represent a promising step in understanding whether AGPN prevention may decrease the risk of graft loss in KTR.

Observation vs. early drainage for grade IV blunt renal trauma: a multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare observation and early drainage by ureteral stenting in patients with blunt renal trauma and urinary extravasation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective national multicenter study was performed including all patients admitted for renal trauma at 17 hospitals between 2005 and 2015. Patients presenting with a urinary extravasation on initial imaging were considered for inclusion. Patients were divided in two groups according to the initial approach: observation vs. early drainage by ureteral stent (within 48 h after admission). The primary endpoint was the persistence of urinary extravasation on follow-up imaging. RESULTS: Out of 1799 patients with renal trauma, 238 were included in the analysis (57 in the early drainage and 181 in the observation group). In the early drainage group, 29 patients had persistent urinary extravasation vs. 77 in the observation group (50.9% vs. 42.5%; p value = 0.27). The rates of secondary upper urinary tract drainage did not differ significantly between the early drainage group (26.4%) and the observation group (16%) (p = 0.14). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of secondary nephrectomy (0% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.34), and death from trauma (0% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.99). In multivariate analysis, early drainage remained not statistically associated with persistence of urinary extravasation on follow-up imaging (OR = 1.35; p = 0.36) CONCLUSION: In this multicenter cohort, observation was not different from early drainage in terms of persistent urinary extravasation after grade IV blunt renal trauma. Further randomized controlled prospective trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Early discharge in selected patients with low-grade renal trauma.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to assess whether early discharge could be non-inferior to inpatient management in selected patients with low-grade renal trauma (AAST grades 1-3). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective national multicenter study was conducted including all patients who presented with renal trauma at 17 hospitals between 2005 and 2015. Exclusion criteria were iatrogenic and AAST grades 4 and 5 trauma, non-conservative initial management, Hb < 10 g/dl or transfusion within the first 24 h, and patients with concomitant injuries. Patients were divided into two groups according to the length of hospital stay: ≤ 48 h (early discharge), and > 48 h (inpatient). The primary outcome was "Intervention" defined as any interventional procedure needed within the first 30 days. A Stabilized Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (SIPTW) propensity score based binary response model was used to estimate risk difference. RESULTS: Out of 1764 patients with renal trauma, 311 were included in the analysis (44 in the early discharge and 267 in the inpatient group). In the early discharge group, only one patient required an intervention within the first 30 days vs. 10 in the inpatient group (3.7% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.99). Adjusted analysis using SIPTW propensity score showed a risk difference of - 2.8% [- 9.3% to + 3.7%] of "interventions" between the two groups meeting the non-inferiority criteria. CONCLUSION: In a highly selected cohort, early discharge management of low-grade renal trauma was not associated with an increased risk of early "intervention" compared to inpatient management. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.