Warfarin, not direct oral anticoagulants or antiplatelet therapy, is associated with increased bleeding risk in emergency general surgery patients: Implications in this new era of novel anticoagulants: An EAST multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to assess perioperative bleeding complications and in-hospital mortality in patients requiring emergency general surgery presenting with a history of antiplatelet (AP) versus direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) versus warfarin use. METHODS: A prospective observational study across 21 centers between 2019 and 2022 was conducted. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older, and DOAC, warfarin, or AP use within 24 hours of an emergency general surgery procedure. Outcomes included perioperative bleeding and in-hospital mortality. The study was conducted using analysis of variance, χ 2 , and multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of the 413 patients, 221 (53.5%) reported AP use, 152 (36.8%) DOAC use, and 40 (9.7%) warfarin use. The most common indications for surgery were obstruction (23% [AP], 45% [DOAC], and 28% [warfarin]), intestinal ischemia (13%, 17%, and 23%), and diverticulitis/peptic ulcers (7%, 7%, and 15%). Compared with DOAC use, warfarin use was associated with significantly higher perioperative bleeding complication (odds ratio [OR], 4.4 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0-9.9]). There was no significant difference in perioperative bleeding complication between DOAC and AP use (OR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.4-1.1]). Compared with DOAC use, there was no significant difference in mortality between warfarin use (OR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.2-2.5]) or AP use (OR, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.2-1.2]). After adjusting for confounders, warfarin use (OR, 6.3 [95% CI, 2.8-13.9]), medical history, and operative indication were associated with an increase in perioperative bleeding complications. However, warfarin was not independently associated with risk of mortality (OR, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.39-4.7]), whereas intraoperative vasopressor use (OR, 4.7 [95% CI, 1.7-12.8]), medical history, and postoperative bleeding (OR, 5.5 [95% CI, 2.4-12.8]) were. CONCLUSION: Despite ongoing concerns about the increase in DOAC use and lack of readily available reversal agents, this study suggests that warfarin, rather than DOACs, is associated with higher perioperative bleeding complications. However, that risk does not result in an increase in mortality, suggesting that perioperative decisions should be dictated by patient disease and comorbidities rather than type of AP or anticoagulant use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Anticoagulation in emergency general surgery: Who bleeds more? The EAST multicenter trials ACES study.

BACKGROUND: While direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use is increasing in the Emergency General Surgery (EGS) patient population, our understanding of their bleeding risk in the acute setting remains limited. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of perioperative bleeding complications in patients using DOACs versus warfarin and AP therapy requiring urgent/emergent EGS procedures (EGSPs). METHODS: This was a prospective observational trial, conducted between 2019 and 2022, across 21 centers. Inclusion criteria were 18 years or older, DOAC, warfarin/AP use within 24 hours of requiring an urgent/emergent EGSP. Demographics, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected. ANOVA, χ 2 , and multivariable regression models were used to conduct the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 413 patients enrolled in the study, 261 (63%) reported warfarin/AP use and 152 (37%) reported DOAC use. Appendicitis and cholecystitis were the most frequent indication for operative intervention in the warfarin/AP group (43.4% vs. 25%, p = 0.001). Small bowel obstruction/abdominal wall hernias were the main indication for operative intervention in the DOAC group (44.7% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.001). Intraoperative, postoperative, and perioperative bleeding complications and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups. After adjusting for confounders, a history of chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; p = 0.015) and indication for operative intervention including occlusive mesenteric ischemia (OR, 4.27; p = 0.016), nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia (OR, 3.13; p = 0.001), and diverticulitis (OR, 3.72; p = 0.019) were associated with increased perioperative bleeding complications. The need for an intraoperative transfusion (OR, 4.87; p < 0.001), and intraoperative vasopressors (OR, 4.35; p = 0.003) were associated with increased in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: Perioperative bleeding complications and mortality are impacted by the indication for EGSPs and patient's severity of illness rather than a history of DOAC or warfarin/AP use. Therefore, perioperative management should be guided by patient physiology and indication for surgery rather than the concern for recent antiplatelet or anticoagulant use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

Time is of the Essence: Impact of a More Aggressive Chemical Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Regimen on Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Trauma patients are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Opportunity for chemical VTE prophylaxis improvement was identified and practice was altered to start chemoprophylaxis on admission in most patients. The purpose of this study was to determine if early VTE prophylaxis is safe and reduces VTE. METHODS: The trauma registry was queried over a 12-month period for patients admitted greater than 1 day for traumatic injury. The study spanned 6 months on either side of instituting aggressive chemoprophylaxis. Patients were risk adjusted on demographics, Injury Severity Score, transfusions, procedure type, length of stay, and mortality. Pre-intervention patients were then compared to patients in the aggressive cohort with the primary outcome of VTE. Secondary outcomes included transfusions, mortality, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: 1597 patients were identified over the study period with 754 (47%) patients in the aggressive period. There were no differences in age, sex, Injury Severity Score, transfusions, procedures, or LOS between cohorts. Pre-algorithm patients were more likely to have penetrating mechanism (9.3% vs 6.6%; P = .009) and longer time to VTE prophylaxis (23.3 vs 13.9 hours; P < .001). No differences were noted in anticoagulant, VTE rate (2.0% vs 1.2%; P = .195), or mortality. Linear regression analysis identified time to chemical prophylaxis as significant predictor of VTE (ß = 43.9, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Early aggressive chemical VTE prophylaxis is safe without increasing transfusions. Venous thromboembolism rates were decreased, but did not reach statistical significance.

The Emergency Surgery Score accurately predicts the need for postdischarge respiratory and renal support after emergent laparotomies: A prospective EAST multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The Emergency Surgery Score (ESS) was recently validated as an accurate mortality risk calculator for emergency general surgery. We sought to prospectively evaluate whether ESS can predict the need for respiratory and/or renal support (RRS) at discharge after emergent laparotomies (EL). METHODS: This is a post hoc analysis of a 19-center prospective observational study. Between April 2018 and June 2019, all adult patients undergoing EL were enrolled. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were systematically collected. In this analysis, patients were excluded if they died during the index hospitalization, were discharged to hospice, or transferred to other hospitals. A composite variable, the need for RRS, was defined as the need for one or more of the following at hospital discharge: tracheostomy, ventilator dependence, or dialysis. Emergency Surgery Score was calculated for all patients, and the correlation between ESS and RRS was examined using the c-statistics method. RESULTS: From a total of 1,649 patients, 1,347 were included. Median age was 60 years, 49.4% were men, and 70.9% were White. The most common diagnoses were hollow viscus organ perforation (28.1%) and small bowel obstruction (24.5%); 87 patients (6.5%) had a need for RRS (4.7% tracheostomy, 2.7% dialysis, and 1.3% ventilator dependence). Emergency Surgery Score predicted the need for RRS in a stepwise fashion; for example, 0.7%, 26.2%, and 85.7% of patients required RRS at an ESS of 2, 12, and 16, respectively. The c-statistics for the need for RRS, the need for tracheostomy, ventilator dependence, or dialysis at discharge were 0.84, 0.82, 0.79, and 0.88, respectively. CONCLUSION: Emergency Surgery Score accurately predicts the need for RRS at discharge in EL patients and could be used for preoperative patient counseling and for quality of care benchmarking. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

The emergency surgery score (ESS) and outcomes in elderly patients undergoing emergency laparotomy: A post-hoc analysis of an EAST multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to evaluate whether the Emergency Surgery Score (ESS) can accurately predict outcomes in elderly patients undergoing emergent laparotomy (EL). METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of an EAST multicenter study. Between April 2018 and June 2019, all adult patients undergoing EL in 19 participating hospitals were prospectively enrolled, and ESS was calculated for each patient. Using the c-statistic, the correlation between ESS and mortality, morbidity, and need for ICU admission was assessed in three patient age cohorts (65-74, 75-84, ≥85 years old). RESULTS: 715 patients were included, of which 52% were 65-74, 34% were 75-84, and 14% were ≥85 years old; 51% were female, and 77% were white. ESS strongly correlated with postoperative mortality (c-statistic:0.81). Mortality gradually increased from 0% to 20%-60% at ESS of 2, 10 and 16 points, respectively. ESS predicted mortality, morbidity, and need for ICU best in patients 65-74 years old (c-statistic:0.81, 0.75, 0.83 respectively), but its performance significantly decreased in patients ≥85 years (c-statistic:0.72, 0.64, 0.67 respectively). CONCLUSION: ESS is an accurate predictor of outcome in the elderly EL patient 65-85 years old, but its performance decreases for patients ≥85. Consideration should be given to modify ESS to better predict outcomes in the very elderly patient population.

Opioid exposure after injury in United States trauma centers: A prospective, multicenter observational study.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce opioid use in trauma patients are currently hampered by an incomplete understanding of the baseline opioid exposure and variation in United States. The purpose of this project was to obtain a global estimate of opioid exposure following injury and to quantify the variability of opioid exposure between and within United States trauma centers. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective observational study was performed to calculate opioid exposure by converting all sources of opioids to oral morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). To estimate variation, an intraclass correlation was calculated from a multilevel generalized linear model adjusting for the a priori selected variables Injury Severity Score and prior opioid use. RESULTS: The centers enrolled 1,731 patients. The median opioid exposure among all sites was 45 MMEs per day, equivalent to 30 mg of oxycodone or 45 mg of hydrocodone per day. Variation in opioid exposure was identified both between and within trauma centers with the vast majority of variation (93%) occurring within trauma centers. Opioid exposure increased with injury severity, in male patients, and patients suffering penetrating trauma. CONCLUSION: The overall median opioid exposure was 45 MMEs per day. Despite significant differences in opioid exposure between trauma centers, the majority of variation was actually within centers. This suggests that efforts to minimize opioid exposure after injury should focus within trauma centers and not on high-level efforts to affect all trauma centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level III.

Prospective validation of the Emergency Surgery Score in emergency general surgery: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The Emergency Surgery Score (ESS) was recently developed and retrospectively validated as an accurate mortality risk calculator for emergency general surgery. We sought to prospectively validate ESS, specifically in the high-risk nontrauma emergency laparotomy (EL) patient. METHODS: This is an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter prospective observational study. Between April 2018 and June 2019, 19 centers enrolled all adults (aged >18 years) undergoing EL. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were prospectively and systematically collected. Emergency Surgery Score was calculated for each patient and validated using c-statistic methodology by correlating it with three postoperative outcomes: (1) 30-day mortality, (2) 30-day complications (e.g., respiratory/renal failure, infection), and (3) postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) admission. RESULTS: A total of 1,649 patients were included. The mean age was 60.5 years, 50.3% were female, and 71.4% were white. The mean ESS was 6, and the most common indication for EL was hollow viscus perforation. The 30-day mortality and complication rates were 14.8% and 53.3%; 57.0% of patients required ICU admission. Emergency Surgery Score gradually and accurately predicted 30-day mortality; 3.5%, 50.0%, and 85.7% of patients with ESS of 3, 12, and 17 died after surgery, respectively, with a c-statistic of 0.84. Similarly, ESS gradually and accurately predicted complications; 21.0%, 57.1%, and 88.9% of patients with ESS of 1, 6, and 13 developed postoperative complications, with a c-statistic of 0.74. Emergency Surgery Score also accurately predicted which patients required intensive care unit admission (c-statistic, 0.80). CONCLUSION: This is the first prospective multicenter study to validate ESS as an accurate predictor of outcome in the EL patient. Emergency Surgery Score can prove useful for (1) perioperative patient and family counseling, (2) triaging patients to the intensive care unit, and (3) benchmarking the quality of emergency general surgery care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.

End-tidal carbon dioxide underestimates plasma carbon dioxide during emergent trauma laparotomy leading to hypoventilation and misguided resuscitation: A Western Trauma Association Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: End-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) is routinely used during elective surgery to monitor ventilation. The role of ETCO2 monitoring in emergent trauma operations is poorly understood. We hypothesized that ETCO2 values underestimate plasma carbon dioxide (pCO2) values during resuscitation for hemorrhagic shock. METHODS: Multicenter trial was performed analyzing the correlation between ETCO2 and pCO2 levels. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty-six patients resulted in 587 matched pairs of ETCO2 and pCO2. Correlation between these two values was very poor with an R of 0.04. 40.2% of patients presented to the operating room acidotic and hypercarbic with a pH less than 7.30 and a pCO2 greater than 45 mm Hg. Correlation was worse in patients that were either acidotic or hypercarbic. Forty-five percent of patients have a difference greater than 10 mm Hg between ETCO2 and pCO2. A pH less than 7.30 was predictive of an ETCO2 to pCO2 difference greater than 10 mm Hg. A difference greater than 10 mm Hg was predictive of mortality independent of confounders. CONCLUSION: Nearly one half (45%) of patients were found to have an ETCO2 level greater than 10 mm Hg discordant from their PCO2 level. Reliance on the discordant values may have contributed to the 40% of patients in the operating room that were both acidotic and hypercarbic. Early blood gas analysis is warranted, and a lower early goal of ETCO2 should be considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level IV.