The Effect of Angioembolization Versus Open Exploration for Moderate to Severe Blunt Liver Injuries on Mortality.

INTRODUCTION: Blunt liver injury is common and is associated with a high morbidity and mortality. More severe injuries often require either angioembolization or open operative repair, depending on patient factors and facility capacity. We sought to describe patient outcomes based on intervention type. METHODS: We analyzed the National Trauma Data Bank (2017-2019) using ICD-10 codes to identify adult patients with blunt liver injury and their interventions. AIS (Abbreviated Injury Scale) scores were used to group patients based on liver injury severity (AIS 2-6). Logistic regression modeling was used to estimate the adjusted odds ratio of death based on intervention type, excluding patients with severe injury. RESULTS: Of 2,848,592 trauma patients, 50,250 patients had a blunt liver injury. Among patients with AIS 3/4/5 injury, 1,140 had angioembolization, 1,529 had an open repair, and 188 had both angioembolization and open repair. In comparison with no intervention and adjusted for age, sex, shock index, ISS, and transfusion total (first four hours), angioembolization was associated with a significant decrease in the odds of mortality for patients with an AIS 4 (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.47, 0.99) and AIS 5 injury (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.24, 0.64). In patients with an AIS 5 injury, open repair had an increased odds of mortality at OR 1.99 (95% CI 1.47, 2.69). CONCLUSION: In an analysis of a national trauma database, patients with a moderate to severe injury (AIS 4 or 5), angioembolization was associated with a significant reduction in the adjusted odds of mortality compared to open repair and should be considered when clinically appropriate.

Trends and Outcomes in Management of Thoracic Aortic Injury in Children, Adolescent, and Mature Pediatric Patients Using Data from the National Trauma Data Bank.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic aortic injury (TAI) is rare in the pediatric population. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the recommended standard of care for treatment in the adult population given its association with lower rates of mortality and morbidity than traditional open repairs for treatment of TAI. However, there are unique anatomic challenges in treating pediatric patients with TEVAR which may impact the outcomes and pediatric guidelines. We aimed to compare current management trends and outcomes between different pediatric age groups using data from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). METHODS: We analyzed the NTDB from 2007 to 2019 using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and -10 codes to identify patients with a TAI. We excluded patients older than 21 years and any patients who died in the emergency department. The pediatric patients were stratified by age group: children (1-11 years), adolescent (12-17 years), and mature (18-21 years) patients. Patient characteristics compared included injury mechanism and severity, TAI intervention, and outcomes between the 3 groups using bivariate analysis (analysis of variance for parametric and Kruskal-Wallis for nonparametric variables). These characteristics and outcomes were also compared by TAI intervention and injury mechanism. ICD-9 and -10 procedural codes were used to identify patients who underwent TEVAR, open aortic repair (OAR), or both. The modified Poisson regression was performed with relative risk (RR) to evaluate our primary outcome measure-mortality during the trauma admission. RESULTS: A total of 2,431 pediatric TAI were identified in the NTDB that met the inclusion criteria. This included 134 children (5.5%), 733 adolescent (30.2%), and 1,564 mature (64.3%) patients. Children had significantly lower median Injury Severity Scores (34.1) than the adolescent (38) or mature population (36.1) (P = 0.001). The mechanism of injury differed between age groups. Children had higher rates of blunt trauma (90.3% children, 89.6% adolescent, and 86.8% mature patients) and mature patients had higher rates of penetrating trauma (6% children, 10.1% adolescent, and 12.5% mature patients) (P < 0.001). TAI management also differed significantly between pediatric age groups. Mature patients had significantly higher rates of TEVAR (3% children, 25.2% adolescent, and 29.2% mature patients) and children were most likely to be treated with nonoperative management (NOM) (94% children, 67.9% adolescent, and 64.8% mature patients) (P < 0.001). Patients who were treated with TEVAR were discharge home most frequently (31.8% NOM, 54.1% TEVAR, 44.3% OAR, 22.2% both TEVAR and OAR). Upon modified Poisson regression analysis, patient age was not associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality. Intervention with TEVAR (RR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.15-0.33, P < 0.001) and OAR (RR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.36-0.93, P = 0.024) were associated with a lower risk of mortality than NOM. CONCLUSIONS: TAI is less prevalent in children compared to adults. TEVAR for TAI is associated with lower risk of in-hospital mortality compared to both NOM and OAR without differences between pediatric subgroups. Further studies should be completed to determine the most appropriate management guidelines.

Comparative outcomes between COVID-19 and influenza patients placed on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe ARDS.

BACKGROUND: ECMO is an established supportive adjunct for patients with severe, refractory ARDS from viral pneumonia. However, the exact role and timing of ECMO for COVID-19 patients remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective comparison of the first 32 patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS to the last 28 patients with influenza-associated ARDS placed on V-V ECMO. We compared patient factors between the two cohorts and used survival analysis to compare the hazard of mortality over sixty days post-cannulation. RESULTS: COVID-19 patients were older (mean 47.8 vs. 41.2 years, p = 0.033), had more ventilator days before cannulation (mean 4.5 vs. 1.5 days, p < 0.001). Crude in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the COVID-19 cohort at 65.6% (n = 21/32) versus 36.3% (n = 11/28, p = 0.041). The adjusted hazard ratio over sixty days for COVID-19 patients was 2.81 (95% CI 1.07, 7.35) after adjusting for age, race, ECMO-associated organ failure, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. CONCLUSION: ECMO has a role in severe ARDS associated with COVID-19 but providers should carefully weigh patient factors when utilizing this scarce resource in favor of influenza pneumonia.

Splenic preservation after isolated splenic blunt trauma: The angioembolization paradox.

BACKGROUND: The spleen is the most commonly injured organ in blunt abdominal trauma. The management for splenic trauma includes nonoperative management, splenectomy, and splenic artery angioembolization. The aim of this study is to investigate recent trends in the usage of splenic artery angioembolization in patients with isolated blunt splenic trauma. METHODS: Adult patients (age >15) with isolated blunt splenic trauma were identified from the National Trauma Databank (2007-2015) using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes. The defined groups included nonoperative management, splenectomy, and splenic artery angioembolization. Patient variables collected included year of traumatic injury, age, sex, race, insurance status, and geographic region. Clinical variables collected included vital signs (systolic blood pressure, pulse, respiratory rate) recorded upon arrival to the emergency room, injury severity score, abbreviated injury severity scores, diagnoses, procedures, and mechanism. Outcome measures included mortality, hospital duration of stay, and complications. We performed 2 independent Poisson logistic regression models to assess relative risk for both splenectomy and angioembolization. RESULTS: A total of 10,812 patients were included in the analysis (nonoperative management: 7,920; splenectomy: 2,083; angioembolization: 809). Angioembolization proportion increased from 2007 (4.6%) to 2015 (10%), while splenectomy proportion remained unchanged (19.2% to 18.3%). Poisson logistic regression suggests the adjusted probability of receiving angioembolization for a splenic injury increased year-to-year, while the adjusted probability of receiving a splenectomy remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: The use of angioembolization for isolated blunt splenic injuries has increased over the past decade without a reciprocal change in splenectomy. Based on this study, angioembolization may be an overused resource without a significant benefit.

Liver transplant offers a survival benefit over margin negative resection in patients with small unifocal hepatocellular carcinoma and preserved liver function.

BACKGROUND: Studies comparing orthotopic liver transplantation to margin negative resection for patients with small unifocal hepatocellular carcinoma have not controlled for degree of cirrhosis. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was used to identify patients with preserved liver function (Model for End-stage Liver Disease score ≤12) who underwent orthotopic liver transplantation or margin negative resection for American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I hepatocellular carcinoma lesions <3 cm between 2010 and 2013. Multivariable and Cox regression adjusting for age, demographics, comorbid disease burden, Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, tumor size, and operation were used to compare overall survival between cohorts. RESULTS: In the study, 241 (53%) patients underwent orthotopic liver transplantation. In addition, 219 (47%) underwent margin negative resection. On multivariable regression, patients having a Charlson comorbidity score ≥2 were more likely to undergo orthotopic liver transplantation, (odds ratio 1.94, P=.03). African American patients (odds ratio 0.44, P=.02), and patients of advanced age (odds ratio 0.92, P<.001) were more likely to undergo margin negative resection. Patients undergoing orthotopic liver transplantation had longer overall survival than those undergoing margin negative resection (median OS not reached versus 67.6 months, P<.001). Multivariable Cox regression identified surgical procedure as the only independent determinant of survival with margin negative resection conferring a nearly 3-fold increased risk of death (hazard ratio 2.86, P<.001). CONCLUSION: Orthotopic liver transplantation offers a survival advantage relative to margin negative resection for patients with small unifocal hepatocellular carcinoma and preserved liver function.

Implementing a resident acute care surgery service: Improving resident education and patient care.

BACKGROUND: To simulate the duties and responsibilities of an attending surgeon and allow senior residents more intraoperative and perioperative autonomy, our program created a new resident acute care surgery consult service. METHODS: We structured resident acute care surgery as a new admitting and inpatient consult service managed by chief and senior residents with attending supervision. When appropriate, the chief resident served as a teaching assistant in the operation. Outcomes were recorded prospectively and reviewed at weekly quality improvement conferences. The following information was collected: (1) teaching assistant case logs for senior residents preimplentation (n = 10) and postimplementation (n = 5) of the resident acute care surgery service; (2) data on the proportion of each case performed independently by residents; (3) resident evaluations of the resident acute care surgery versus other general operative services; (4) consult time for the first 12 months of the service (June 2014 to June 2015). RESULTS: During the first year after implementation, the number of total teaching assistant cases logged among graduating chief residents increased from a mean of 13.4 ± 13.0 (range 4-44) for preresident acute care surgery residents to 30.8 ± 8.8 (range 27-36) for postresident acute care surgery residents (P < .01). Of 323 operative cases, the residents performed an average of 82% of the case independently. There was a significant increase in the satisfaction with the variety of cases (mean 5.08 vs 4.52, P < .01 on a 6-point Likert scale) and complexity of cases (mean 5.35 vs 4.94, P < .01) on service evaluations of resident acute care surgery (n = 27) in comparison with other general operative services (n = 127). In addition, creation of a 1-team consult service resulted in a more streamlined consult process with average consult time of 22 minutes for operative consults and 25 minutes for nonoperative consults (range 5-90 minutes). CONCLUSION: The implementation of a resident acute care surgery service has increased resident autonomy, teaching assistant cases, and satisfaction with operative case variety, as well as the efficiency of operative consultation at our institution.