Narrative Review: Is There a Transfusion Cutoff Value After Which Nonsurvivability Is Inevitable in Trauma Patients Receiving Ultramassive Transfusion?

The institution of massive transfusion protocols (MTPs) has improved the timely delivery of large quantities of blood products and improves patient outcomes. In recent years, the cost of blood products has increased, compounded by significant blood product shortages. There is practical need for identification of a transfusion volume in trauma patients that is associated with increased mortality, or a threshold after which additional transfusion is futile and associated with nonsurvivability. This transfusion threshold is often described in the setting of an ultramassive transfusion (UMT). There are few studies defining what constitutes amount or outcomes associated with such large volume transfusion. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an analysis of existing literature examining the effects of UMT on outcomes including survival in adult trauma patients and to determine whether there is a threshold transfusion limit after which mortality is inevitable. Fourteen studies were included in this review. The data examining the utility of UMT in trauma are of poor quality, and with the variability inherent in trauma patients, and the surgeons caring for them, no universally accepted cutoff for transfusion exists. Not surprisingly, there is a trend toward increasing mortality with increasing transfusions. The decision to continue transfusing is multifactorial and must be individualized, taking into consideration patient characteristics, institution factors, blood bank supply, and most importantly, constant reevaluation of the need for ongoing transfusion rather than blind continuous transfusion until the heart stops.

Understanding the Impact of Trauma Admissions to Nonsurgical Services.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS COT) delineates trauma center standards, one of which limits the number of injured patients admitted to nonsurgical services. Performance improvement review of nonsurgical admissions (NSAs), particularly those with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 9, is required. OBJECTIVE: To examine trauma patients with NSA for appropriateness of admission and any potential clinical effect as a result of NSA. METHODS: All trauma patients presenting to our ACS COT-verified level 1 trauma center in Southern California (05/2021-04/2022) were retrospectively screened. Nonsurgical admissions with ISS > 9 were included without exclusions. Appropriateness and clinical impact of NSA were assessed by the Trauma Medical Director (TMD) and Associate TMD. RESULTS: Forty patients met study criteria, with a mean age of 54 years (range 5 d-99 y). The mean ISS was 19 (range 10-30). Nonsurgical admissions most commonly sustained traumatic brain injury (TBI) (n = 27, 68%) after ground level falls (GLF) (n = 32, 80%). All NSAs were evaluated by ≥1 surgical service, commonly neurosurgery (n = 33, 83%) and trauma surgery (n = 13, 33%). Sixteen patients (40%) died, 75% (n = 12) of which were secondary to catastrophic TBI. Upon detailed review, all NSAs were deemed appropriate and without potential clinical impact. CONCLUSIONS: All NSAs in this study were appropriate admissions without clinical effect from lack of surgical admission. Nonsurgical admissions were typically elderly patients with head injuries after GLF. With the anticipated increase in geriatric trauma due to our aging population, NSA with surgical consultation may be an important way to manage trauma admissions without compromising care of injured patients.

Temporary intravascular shunts after civilian arterial injury: A prospective multicenter Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma study.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to determine the impact of the indication for shunt placement on shunt-related outcomes after major arterial injuries. We hypothesized that a shunt placed for damage control indications would be associated with an increase in shunt-related complications including shunt dislodgement, thrombosis, or distal ischemia. PATIENTS & METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study (eleven level one US trauma centers) of all adult trauma patients undergoing temporary intravascular shunts (TIVS) after arterial injury was undertaken (January 2017-May 2019). Exclusion criteria included age <15years, shunt placement distal to popliteal/brachial arteries, isolated venous shunts, and death before shunt removal. Clinical variables were compared by indication and shunt-related complications. The primary endpoint was TIVS complications (thrombosis, migration, distal ischemia). RESULTS: The 66 patients who underwent TIVS were primarily young (30years [IQR 22-36]) men (85%), severely injured (ISS 17 [10-25]) by penetrating mechanisms (59%), and had their shunts placed for damage control (41%). After a median SDT of 198min [89-622], 9% experienced shunt-related complications. Compared by shunt placement indication (damage control shunts [n=27] compared to non-damage control shunts [n=39]), there were no differences in gender, mechanism, extremity AIS, MESS score, fractures, or surgeon specialty between the two groups (all p>0.05). Patients with shunts placed for damage control indications had more severe injuries (ISS 23.5 compared to 13; SBP 100 compared to 129; GCS 11 compared to 15; lactate 11.5 compared to 3.6; all p<0.05), and had more frequent shunt complication predictors, but damage control shunts did not have significantly more TIVS complications (11.1% compared to 7.7%, p=0.658). Shunt complication patients were discharged home less often (33% vs 65%; p<0.05) but all survived. CONCLUSION: Shunts placed for damage control indications were not associated with shunt complications in this prospective, multicenter study.

Penetrating injury to the cardiac box.

BACKGROUND: A penetrating injury to the "cardiac box" is thought to be predictive of an injury to the heart; however, there is very little evidence available to support this association. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between penetrating trauma to the cardiac box and a clinically significant injury. METHODS: All patients presenting to a Level I trauma center from January 2009 to June 2015 who sustained a penetrating injury isolated to the thorax were retrospectively identified. Patients were categorized according to the location of injury: within or outside the historical cardiac box. Patients with concurrent injuries both inside and outside the cardiac box were excluded. Clinical demographics, injuries, procedures, and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: During this 7-year period, 330 patients (92% male; median age, 28 years) sustained penetrating injuries isolated to the thorax: 138 (42%) within the cardiac box and 192 (58%) outside the cardiac box. By mechanism, 105 (76%) were stab wounds (SW) and 33 (24%) were gunshot wounds (GSW) inside the cardiac box, and 125 (65%) SW and 67 (35%) GSW outside the cardiac box. The overall rate of thoracotomy or sternotomy (35/138 [25.4%] vs. 15/192 [7.8%], p < 0.001) and the incidence of cardiac injury (18/138 [13%] vs. 5/192 [2.6%], p < 0.001) were significantly higher in patients with penetrating trauma within the cardiac box. This was, however, dependent on mechanism with SW demonstrating a higher incidence of cardiac injury (15/105 [14.3%] vs. 3/125 [2.4%], p = 0.001) and GSW showing no significant difference (3/33 [9.1%] vs. 2/67 [3%], p = 0.328]. There was no difference in overall mortality (9/138 [6.5%] vs. 6/192 [3.1%], p = 0.144). CONCLUSION: The role of the cardiac box in the clinical evaluation of a patient with a penetrating injury to the thorax has remained unclear. In this analysis, mechanism is important. Stab wounds to the cardiac box were associated with a higher risk of cardiac injury. However, for GSW, injury to the cardiac box was not associated with a higher incidence of injury. The diagnostic interaction between clinical examination and ultrasound, for the diagnosis of clinically significant cardiac injuries, warrants further investigation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, Level IV, Therapeutic V.