In-Hospital Risk Factors for Reintervention and Amputation in Brachial Arterial Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: Brachial artery trauma is a rare but potentially devastating injury. There is little data regarding risk factors for reintervention and amputation prevention in this population, as well as anticoagulant (AC) and antiplatelet (AP) regimens and outcomes after discharge in trauma patients with vascular injuries requiring repair. This study aims to identify in-hospital risk factors for reintervention and amputation and stratify outcomes of follow-up by discharge AC or AP regimen. METHODS: The AAST Prospective Observational Vascular Injury Trial database was queried for all patients who underwent traumatic brachial arterial repair from 2013 to 2022. Patients were evaluated by need for reintervention, amputation, and outcomes at follow-up by AC or AP regimen. RESULTS: Three hundred and eleven patients required brachial repair, 28 (9%) required reoperation, and 8 (2.6%) required amputation. High injury severity score and an increased number of packed red blood cells and platelets showed a significant increase for reoperation and amputation. Damage control and shunt use were significant for the need to reoperate. Seventy-four percent (221/298) of patients were discharged with postoperative AC or AP regimens. There was no significant difference of short-term follow-up by type of AC or AP regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Damage control and temporary shunt may lead to additional operations but not an increase in amputations. However, anticoagulation intraoperatively and postoperatively does not appear to play a significant role in reducing reintervention. It also suggests that there is no increase in short-term follow-up complications with or without AC or AP therapy.

AAST multicenter prospective analysis of prehospital tourniquet use for extremity trauma.

BACKGROUND: Tourniquet use for extremity hemorrhage control has seen a recent increase in civilian usage. Previous retrospective studies demonstrated that tourniquets improve outcomes for major extremity trauma (MET). No prospective study has been conducted to date. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes in MET patients with prehospital tourniquet use. We hypothesized that prehospital tourniquet use in MET decreases the incidence of patients arriving to the trauma center in shock. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively for adult patients with MET at 26 Level I and 3 Level II trauma centers from 2015 to 2020. Limbs with tourniquets applied in the prehospital setting were included in the tourniquet group and limbs without prehospital tourniquets were enrolled in the control group. RESULTS: A total of 1,392 injured limbs were enrolled with 1,130 tourniquets, including 962 prehospital tourniquets. The control group consisted of 262 limbs without prehospital tourniquets and 88 with tourniquets placed upon hospital arrival. Prehospital improvised tourniquets were placed in 42 patients. Tourniquets effectively controlled bleeding in 87.7% of limbs. Tourniquet and control groups were similarly matched for demographics, Injury Severity Score, and prehospital vital signs (p > 0.05). Despite higher limb injury severity, patients in the tourniquet group were less likely to arrive in shock compared with the control group (13.0% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.04). The incidence of limb complications was not significantly higher in the tourniquet group (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study is the first prospective analysis of prehospital tourniquet use for civilian extremity trauma. Prehospital tourniquet application was associated with decreased incidence of arrival in shock without increasing limb complications. We found widespread tourniquet use, high effectiveness, and a low number of improvised tourniquets. This study provides further evidence that tourniquets are being widely and safely adopted to improve outcomes in civilians with MET. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.