Effectiveness of a thrombin-gelatin flowable for treating severe liver bleeding: an experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Current scientific evidence has pointed out the relevance of hemostatic products for improving clinical outcomes in liver trauma, including increased survival rates and reductions in bleeding-related complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the use of the gelatin-thrombin flowable (Flowable) versus the standard technique of Packing in a new experimental liver injury model. METHODS: Twenty-four swine were prospectively randomized to receive either Flowable or standard packing technique. We used a novel severe liver injury model, in which the middle and left suprahepatic veins were selectively injured, causing an exsanguinating hemorrhage. The main outcome measure was the percentage of lost blood volume. RESULTS: The median total percentage of total blood volume per animal lost, from injury to minute 120, was significantly lower in the Flowable group (15.2%; interquartile range: 10.7-46.7%) than in the Packing group (64.9%; Interquartile range: 53.4-73.0%) (Hodges-Lehmann median difference: 41.1%; 95% CI: 18.9-58.0%, p = 0.0034). The 24-hour survival rate was significantly higher in the Flowable group (87.0%) than in the Packing group (0.0%) (Hazard ratio (HR) 0.08; 95% confidence interval 0.102 to 0.27; p < 0.0001). Mean-arterial pressure was significantly lower at minute 60 and 120 in the Flowable group than in the packing group (p = 0.0258 and p = 0.0272, respectively). At minute 120, hematocrit was higher in the Flowable than in the packing group (Hodges-Lehmann median difference: 5.5%; 95%CI: 1.0 to11.0, p = 0.0267). Finally, the overall-surgical-procedure was significantly shorter with Flowable than with Packing (Hodges-Lehmann median difference: 39.5 s, 95% CI: 25.0 to 54.0 s, p = 0.0004). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Flowable was more effective in achieving hemostasis, reducing blood loss, and improving survival rates than standard packing in a severe porcine-liver bleeding model.

Multicentre cohort study of acute cholecystitis management during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: To analyse acute cholecystitis (AC) management during the first pandemic outbreak after the recommendations given by the surgical societies estimating: morbidity, length of hospital stay, mortality and hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection rate. METHODS: Multicentre-combined (retrospective-prospective) cohort study with AC patients in the Community of Madrid between 1st March and 30th May 2020. 257 AC patients were involved in 16 public hospital. Multivariant binomial logistic regression (MBLR) was applied to mortality. RESULTS: Of COVID-19 patients, 30 were diagnosed at admission and 12 patients were diagnosed during de admission or 30 days after discharge. In non-COVID-19 patients, antibiotic therapy was received in 61.3% of grade I AC and 40.6% of grade II AC. 52.4% of grade III AC were treated with percutaneous drainage (PD). Median hospital stay was 5 [3-8] days, which was higher in the non-surgical treatment group with 7.51 days (p < 0.001) and a 3.25% of mortality rate (p < 0.21). 93.3% of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection at admission were treated with non-surgical treatment (p = 0.03), median hospital stay was 11.0 [7.5-27.5] days (p < 0.001) with a 7.5% of mortality rate (p > 0.05). In patients with hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection, 91.7% of grade I-II AC were treated with non-surgical treatment (p = 0.037), with a median hospital stay of 16 [4-21] days and a 18.2% mortality rate (p > 0.05). Hospital-acquired infection risk when hospital stay is > 7 days is OR 4.7, CI 95% (1.3-16.6), p = 0.009. COVID-19 mortality rate was 11.9%, AC severity adjusted OR 5.64 (CI 95% 1.417-22.64). In MBLR analysis, age (OR 1.15, CI 95% 1.02-1.31), SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 14.49, CI 95% 1.33-157.81), conservative treatment failure (OR 8.2, CI 95% 1.34-50.49) and AC severity were associated with an increased odd of mortality. CONCLUSION: In our population, during COVID-19 pandemic, there was an increase of non-surgical treatment which was accompanied by an increase of conservative treatment failure, morbidity and hospital stay length which may have led to an increased risk hospital-acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection. Age, SARS-CoV-2 infection, AC severity and conservative treatment failure were mortality risk factors.