Use of Cold-Stored Whole Blood is Associated With Improved Mortality in Hemostatic Resuscitation of Major Bleeding: A Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify a mortality benefit with the use of whole blood (WB) as part of the resuscitation of bleeding trauma patients. BACKGROUND: Blood component therapy (BCT) is the current standard for resuscitating trauma patients, with WB emerging as the blood product of choice. We hypothesized that the use of WB versus BCT alone would result in decreased mortality. METHODS: We performed a 14-center, prospective observational study of trauma patients who received WB versus BCT during their resuscitation. We applied a generalized linear mixed-effects model with a random effect and controlled for age, sex, mechanism of injury (MOI), and injury severity score. All patients who received blood as part of their initial resuscitation were included. Primary outcome was mortality and secondary outcomes included acute kidney injury, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism, pulmonary complications, and bleeding complications. RESULTS: A total of 1623 [WB: 1180 (74%), BCT: 443(27%)] patients who sustained penetrating (53%) or blunt (47%) injury were included. Patients who received WB had a higher shock index (0.98 vs 0.83), more comorbidities, and more blunt MOI (all P <0.05). After controlling for center, age, sex, MOI, and injury severity score, we found no differences in the rates of acute kidney injury, deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism or pulmonary complications. WB patients were 9% less likely to experience bleeding complications and were 48% less likely to die than BCT patients ( P <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BCT, the use of WB was associated with a 48% reduction in mortality in trauma patients. Our study supports the use of WB use in the resuscitation of trauma patients.

An analysis of police transport in an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial examining prehospital procedures in penetrating trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Police transport (PT) of penetrating trauma patients in urban locations has become routine in certain metropolitan areas; however, whether it results in improved outcomes over prehospital Advanced life support (ALS) transport has not been determined in a multicenter study. We hypothesized that PT would not result in improved outcomes. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective, observational study of adults (18+ years) with penetrating trauma to the torso and/or proximal extremity presenting at 25 urban trauma centers. Police transport and ALS patients were allocated via nearest neighbor, propensity matching. Transport mode also examined by Cox regression. RESULTS: Of 1,618 total patients, 294 (18.2%) had PT and 1,324 (81.8%) were by ALS. After matching, 588 (294/cohort) remained. The patients were primarily Black (n = 497, 84.5%), males (n = 525, 89.3%, injured by gunshot wound (n = 494, 84.0%) with 34.5% (n = 203) having Injury Severity Score of 16 or higher. Overall mortality by propensity matching was not different between cohorts (15.6% ALS vs. 15.0% PT, p = 0.82). In severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score ≥16), mortality did not differ between PT and ALS transport (38.8% vs. 36.0%, respectively; p = 0.68). Cox regression analysis controlled for relevant factors revealed no association with a mortality benefit in patients transported by ALS. CONCLUSION: Police transport of penetrating trauma patients in urban locations results in similar outcomes compared with ALS. Immediate transport to definitive trauma care should be emphasized in this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Trial: Comparison of pre-injury antithrombotic use and reversal strategies among severe traumatic brain injury patients.

BACKGROUND: Trauma teams are often faced with patients on antithrombotic (AT) drugs, which is challenging when bleeding occurs. We sought to compare the effects of different AT medications on head injury severity and hypothesized that AT reversal would not improve mortality in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. METHODS: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored prospective, multicentered, observational study of 15 trauma centers was performed. Patient demographics, injury burden, comorbidities, AT agents, and reversal attempts were collected. Outcomes of interest were head injury severity and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Analysis was performed on 2,793 patients. The majority of patients were on aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA], 46.1%). Patients on a platelet chemoreceptor blocker (P2Y12) had the highest mean Injury Severity Score (9.1 ± 8.1). Patients taking P2Y12 inhibitors ± ASA, and ASA-warfarin had the highest head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) mean (1.2 ± 1.6). On risk-adjusted analysis, warfarin-ASA was associated with a higher head AIS (odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-4.42) after controlling for Injury Severity Score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, initial Glasgow Coma Scale score, and initial systolic blood pressure. Among patients with severe TBI (head AIS score, ≥3) on antiplatelet therapy, reversal with desmopressin (DDAVP) and/or platelet transfusion did not improve survival (82.9% reversal vs. 90.4% none, p = 0.30). In severe TBI patients taking Xa inhibitors who received prothrombin complex concentrate, survival was not improved (84.6% reversal vs. 84.6% none, p = 0.68). With risk adjustment as described previously, mortality was not improved with reversal attempts (antiplatelet agents: OR 0.83; 85% CI, 0.12-5.9 [p = 0.85]; Xa inhibitors: OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.12-4.64; p = 0.77). CONCLUSION: Reversal attempts appear to confer no mortality benefit in severe TBI patients on antiplatelet agents or Xa inhibitors. Combination therapy was associated with severity of head injury among patients taking preinjury AT therapy, with ASA-warfarin possessing the greatest risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level II.

An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial examining prehospital procedures in penetrating trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital procedures (PHP) by emergency medical services (EMS) are performed regularly in penetrating trauma patients despite previous studies demonstrating no benefit. We sought to examine the influence of PHPs on outcomes in penetrating trauma patients in urban locations where transport to trauma center is not prolonged. We hypothesized that patients without PHPs would have better outcomes than those undergoing PHP. METHODS: This was an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored, multicenter, prospective, observational trial of adults (18+ years) with penetrating trauma to the torso and/or proximal extremity presenting at 25 urban trauma centers. The impact of PHPs and transport mechanism on in-hospital mortality were examined. RESULTS: Of 2,284 patients included, 1,386 (60.7%) underwent PHP. The patients were primarily Black (n = 1,527, 66.9%) males (n = 1,986, 87.5%) injured by gunshot wound (n = 1,510, 66.0%) with 34.1% (n = 726) having New Injury Severity Score of ≥16. A total of 1,427 patients (62.5%) were transported by Advanced Life Support EMS, 17.2% (n = 392) by private vehicle, 13.7% (n = 312) by police, and 6.7% (n = 153) by Basic Life Support EMS. Of the PHP patients, 69.1% received PHP on scene, 59.9% received PHP in route, and 29.0% received PHP both on scene and in route. Initial scene vitals differed between groups, but initial emergency department vitals did not. Receipt of ≥1 PHP increased mortality odds (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.83; p = 0.04). Logistic regression showed increased mortality with each PHP, whether on scene or during transport. Subset analysis of specific PHP revealed that intubation (OR, 10.76; 95% CI, 4.02-28.78; p < 0.001), C-spine immobilization (OR, 5.80; 95% CI, 1.85-18.26; p < 0.01), and pleural decompression (OR, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.33-10.28; p = 0.01) had the highest odds of mortality after adjusting for multiple variables. CONCLUSION: Prehospital procedures in penetrating trauma patients impart no survival advantage and may be harmful in urban settings, even when performed during transport. Therefore, PHP should be forgone in lieu of immediate transport to improve patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III.

Contemporary management of traumatic cervical and thoracic esophageal perforation: The results of an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic esophageal perforation is rare and associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is substantial variability in diagnosis and treatment. Esophageal stents have been increasingly used for nontraumatic perforation; however, stenting for traumatic perforation is not yet standard of care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate current management of traumatic esophageal perforation to assess the frequency of and complications associated with esophageal stenting. METHODS: This was an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multi-institutional retrospective study from 2011 to 2016 of patients with traumatic cervical or thoracic esophageal injury admitted to one of 11 participating trauma centers. Data were collected and sent to a single institution where it was analyzed. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, initial management, complications, and patient mortality were collected. Primary outcome was mortality; secondary outcomes were initial treatment, esophageal leak, and associated complications. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were analyzed. Esophageal injuries were cervical in 69% and thoracic in 31%. Most patients were initially managed with operative primary repair (61%), followed by no intervention (19%), esophageal stenting (10%), and wide local drainage (10%). Compared with patients who underwent operative primary repair, patients managed with esophageal stenting had an increased rate of esophageal leak (22.6% vs. 80.0%, p = 0.02). Complication rates were higher in blunt compared with penetrating mechanisms (100% vs. 31.8%, p = 0.03) despite similar Injury Severity Score and neck/chest/abdomen Abbreviated Injury Scale. Overall mortality was 9.8% and did not vary based on location of injury, mechanism of injury, or initial management. CONCLUSION: Most patients with traumatic esophageal injuries still undergo operative primary repair; this is associated with lower rates of postoperative leaks as compared with esophageal stenting. Patients who have traumatic esophageal injury may be best managed by direct repair and not esophageal stenting, although further study is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level IV.

Infection after penetrating brain injury-An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study oral presentation at the 32nd annual meeting of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, January 15-19, 2019, in Austin, Texas.

BACKGROUND: Fatality rates following penetrating traumatic brain injury (pTBI) are extremely high and survivors are often left with significant disability. Infection following pTBI is associated with worse morbidity. The modern rates of central nervous system infections (INF) in civilian survivors are unknown. This study sought to determine the rate of and risk factors for INF following pTBI and to determine the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis. METHODS: Seventeen institutions submitted adult patients with pTBI and survival of more than 72 hours from 2006 to 2016. Patients were stratified by the presence or absence of infection and the use or omission of prophylactic antibiotics. Study was powered at 85% to detect a difference in infection rate of 5%. Primary endpoint was the impact of prophylactic antibiotics on INF. Mantel-Haenszel χ and Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests were used to compare categorical and nonparametric variables. Significance greater than p = 0.2 was included in a logistic regression adjusted for center. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-three patients with pTBI were identified over 11 years. 7% (n = 51) of patients developed an INF. Sixty-six percent of INF patients received prophylactic antibiotics. Sixty-two percent of all patients received one dose or greater of prophylactic antibiotics and 50% of patients received extended antibiotics. Degree of dural penetration did not appear to impact the incidence of INF (p = 0.8) nor did trajectory through the oropharynx (p = 0.18). Controlling for other variables, there was no statistically significant difference in INF with the use of prophylactic antibiotics (p = 0.5). Infection was higher in patients with intracerebral pressure monitors (4% vs. 12%; p = <0.001) and in patients with surgical intervention (10% vs. 3%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There is no reduction in INF with prophylactic antibiotics in pTBI. Surgical intervention and invasive intracerebral pressure monitoring appear to be risk factors for INF regardless of prophylactic use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level IV.