Wound infection rate after skin closure of damage control laparotomy with wicks or incisional negative wound therapy: An EAST multi-center trial.

Damage control laparotomy (DCL) has a high risk of SSI and as an attempt to mitigate this, surgeons often leave the skin open to heal by secondary intention. A recent retrospective study showed that DCL wounds could be closed with the addition of wicks or incisional wound vacs with acceptable rates of wound infection. The aim of this prospective trial was to corroborate these results. This is a prospective multicenter observational trial performed by 7 institutions from July 2020 to April 2022. Adult patients who underwent DCL and fascia/skin closure with the addition of wicks or an incisional wound vac were included. Patients who died within seven days of DCL were excluded. Demographics, mechanism of initial presentation, wound classification, antibiotics given, surgical site infections, procedures performed, and mortality data was collected. Fisher's Exact test was used for categorical data and Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for continuous data. Mean days to closure was assessed using Student's t-test for independent groups. P-values <0.05 were considered indicative of statistical significance. Over the 21-month period, a total of 119 patients analyzed. Most patients were male (n = 66, 63 %), and the average age was 51 years. The average number of days the abdomen was kept open was 2.6. A majority of the DCLs were performed on acute care patients (n = 76, 63.8 %) and 92 patients (77.3 %) had a wound classification of contaminated or dirty. Most of the patients' skin was closed with wicks in place (68.9 %). There was a 9.8 % infection rate in patient's skin closed with wicks versus 16.2 % closed with an incisional wound vac (p = 0.361). Although the wick group had a higher proportion of class III and IV wound types, patients primarily treated with wicks had a lower risk of wound infection compared to those treated with incisional wound VACs; however, this difference was not statistically significant.

Propensity weighted analysis of chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis agents in isolated severe traumatic brain injury: An EAST sponsored multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), clinicians must balance preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) with the risk of intracranial hemorrhagic expansion (ICHE). We hypothesized that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) would not increase risk of ICHE or VTE as compared to unfractionated heparin (UH) in patients with severe TBI. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years of age with isolated severe TBI (AIS ≥ 3), admitted to 24 level I and II trauma centers between January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2020 and who received subcutaneous UH and LMWH injections for chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEP) were included. Primary outcomes were VTE and ICHE after VTEP initiation. Secondary outcomes were mortality and neurosurgical interventions. Entropy balancing (EBAL) weighted competing risk or logistic regression models were estimated for all outcomes with chemical VTEP agent as the predictor of interest. RESULTS: 984 patients received chemical VTEP, 482 UH and 502 LMWH. Patients on LMWH more often had pre-existing conditions such as liver disease (UH vs LMWH 1.7 % vs. 4.4 %, p = 0.01), and coagulopathy (UH vs LMWH 0.4 % vs. 4.2 %, p < 0.001). There were no differences in VTE or ICHE after VTEP initiation. There were no differences in neurosurgical interventions performed. There were a total of 29 VTE events (3 %) in the cohort who received VTEP. A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect for facility demonstrated no statistically significant differences in time to VTE across the two agents (p = 0.44). The LMWH group had a 43 % lower risk of overall ICHE compared to the UH group (HR = 0.57: 95 % CI = 0.32-1.03, p = 0.062), however was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In this multi-center analysis, patients who received LMWH had a decreased risk of ICHE, with no differences in VTE, ICHE after VTEP initiation and neurosurgical interventions compared to those who received UH. There were no safety concerns when using LMWH compared to UH. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic Care Management.

Early VTE prophylaxis in severe traumatic brain injury: A propensity score weighted EAST multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at high risk of venous thromboembolism events (VTE). We hypothesized that early chemical VTE prophylaxis initiation (≤24 hours of a stable head CT) in severe TBI would reduce VTE without increasing risk of intracranial hemorrhage expansion (ICHE). METHODS: A retrospective review of adult patients 18 years or older with isolated severe TBI (Abbreviated Injury Scale score, ≥ 3) who were admitted to 24 Level I and Level II trauma centers from January 1, 2014 to December 31 2020 was conducted. Patients were divided into those who did not receive any VTE prophylaxis (NO VTEP), who received VTE prophylaxis ≤24 hours after stable head CT (VTEP ≤24) and who received VTE prophylaxis >24 hours after stable head CT (VTEP>24). Primary outcomes were VTE and ICHE. Covariate balancing propensity score weighting was utilized to balance demographic and clinical characteristics across three groups. Weighted univariate logistic regression models were estimated for VTE and ICHE with patient group as predictor of interest. RESULTS: Of 3,936 patients, 1,784 met inclusion criteria. Incidences of VTE was significantly higher in the VTEP>24 group, with higher incidences of DVT in the group. Higher incidences of ICHE were observed in the VTEP≤24 and VTEP>24 groups. After propensity score weighting, there was a higher risk of VTE in patients in VTEP >24 compared with those in VTEP≤24 (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-3.30; p = 0.307), however was not significant. Although, the No VTEP group had decreased odds of having ICHE compared with VTEP≤24 (odds ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.02, p = 0.070), the result was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In this large multi-center analysis, there were no significant differences in VTE based on timing of initiation of VTE prophylaxis. Patients who never received VTE prophylaxis had decreased odds of ICHE. Further evaluation of VTE prophylaxis in larger randomized studies will be necessary for definitive conclusions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Care Management; Level III.