Mechanism Matters: Differential benefits of cold-stored whole blood for trauma resuscitation from a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitation with cold-stored low-titre whole blood (LTOWB) has increased despite the paucity of robust civilian data. Most studies are in predominately blunt trauma and lack analysis of specific subgroups or mechanism of injury. We sought to compare outcomes between patients receiving LTOWB vs. balanced component therapy (BCT) after blunt (BL) and penetrating (PN) trauma. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study of patients receiving either LTWOB-containing or BCT resuscitation was performed. Patients were grouped by mechanism of injury (BL vs PN). A generalized estimated equations model using inverse probability of treatment weighting was employed. Primary outcome was mortality and secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury, venous thromboembolism, pulmonary complications, and bleeding complications. Additional analyses were performed on non-traumatic brain injury (TBI), severe torso injury, and LTOWB-only resuscitation patients. RESULTS: 1617 patients (BL 47% vs PN 54%) were identified; 1175 (73%) of which received LTOWB. PN trauma patients receiving LTOWB demonstrated improved survival compared to BCT (77% vs. 56%; p<0.01). Interval survival was higher at 6 hrs (95% vs. 88%), 12 hrs (93% vs. 80%) and 24 hrs (88% vs. 57%) (all p<0.05). The survival benefit following LTOWB was also seen across PN non-TBI (83% vs. 52%), and severe torso injuries (75% vs. 43%) (all p <0.05). After controlling for age, sex, injury severity, and trauma center, LTWOB was associated with decreased odds of death (OR .31, p<.05) in PN trauma. However, no difference in overall mortality was seen across the BL groups. Both PN and BL patients receiving LTOWB had more frequent AKI compared to BCT (19% vs. 7% and 12% vs 6%, respectively; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LTOWB resuscitation was independently associated with decreased mortality following PN trauma, but not BL trauma. Further analysis in BL trauma is required to identify subgroups that may demonstrate survival benefit. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, III.

4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate is not inferior to andexanet alfa for the reversal or oral factor Xa inhibitors: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Andexanet Alfa (AA) is the only FDA approved reversal agent for apixaban and rivaroxaban (DOAC). There are no studies comparing its efficacy with 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate (PCC). This study aimed to compare PCC to AA for DOAC reversal, hypothesizing non-inferiority of PCC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, non-inferiority multicenter study of adult patients admitted from July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 who had taken a DOAC within 12 hours of injury, were transfused red blood cells (RBCs) or had traumatic brain injury, and received AA or PCC. Primary outcome was PRBC unit transfusion. Secondary outcome with ICU length of stay. MICE imputation was used to account for missing data and zero-inflated poisson regression was used to account for an excess of zero units of RBC transfused. 2 Units difference in RBC transfusion was selected as non-inferior. RESULTS: Results: From 263 patients at 10 centers, 77 (29%) received PCC and 186 (71%) AA. Patients had similar transfusion rates across reversal treatment groups (23.7% AA vs 19.5% PCC) with median transfusion in both groups of 0 RBC. According to the Poisson component, PCC increases the amount of RBC transfusion by 1.02 times (95% CI: 0.79-1.33) compared to AA after adjusting for other covariates. The averaged amount of RBC transfusion (non-zero group) is 6.13. Multiplying this number by the estimated rate ratio, PCC is estimated to have an increase RBC transfusion by 0.123 (95% CI: 0.53-2.02) units compared to AA. CONCLUSION: PCC appears non-inferior to AA for reversal of DOACs for RBC transfusion in traumatically injured patients. Additional prospective, randomized trials are necessary to compare PCC and AA for the treatment of hemorrhage in injured patients on DOACs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, Level III.

Failure rates of nonoperative management of low-grade splenic injuries with active extravasation: an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study.

Objectives: There is little evidence guiding the management of grade I-II traumatic splenic injuries with contrast blush (CB). We aimed to analyze the failure rate of nonoperative management (NOM) of grade I-II splenic injuries with CB in hemodynamically stable patients. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study examining all grade I-II splenic injuries with CB was performed at 21 institutions from January 1, 2014, to October 31, 2019. Patients >18 years old with grade I or II splenic injury due to blunt trauma with CB on CT were included. The primary outcome was the failure of NOM requiring angioembolization/operation. We determined the failure rate of NOM for grade I versus grade II splenic injuries. We then performed bivariate comparisons of patients who failed NOM with those who did not. Results: A total of 145 patients were included. Median Injury Severity Score was 17. The combined rate of failure for grade I-II injuries was 20.0%. There was no statistical difference in failure of NOM between grade I and II injuries with CB (18.2% vs 21.1%, p>0.05). Patients who failed NOM had an increased median hospital length of stay (p=0.024) and increased need for blood transfusion (p=0.004) and massive transfusion (p=0.030). Five patients (3.4%) died and 96 (66.2%) were discharged home, with no differences between those who failed and those who did not fail NOM (both p>0.05). Conclusion: NOM of grade I-II splenic injuries with CB fails in 20% of patients. Level of evidence: IV.