ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: High-grade liver injuries with extravasation (HGLI â+ âExtrav) are associated with morbidity/mortality. For low-grade injuries, an observation (OBS) first-strategy is beneficial over initial angiography (IR), however, it is unclear if OBS is safe for HGLI â+ âExtrav. Therefore, we evaluated the management of HGLI â+ âExtrav patients, hypothesizing IR patients will have decreased rates of operation and mortality. METHODS: HGLI â+ âExtrav patients managed with initial OBS or IR were included. The primary outcome was need for operation. Secondary outcomes included liver-related complications (LRCs) and mortality. RESULTS: From 59 patients, 23 (39.0%) were managed with OBS and 36 (61.0%) with IR. 75% of IR patients underwent angioembolization, whereas 13% of OBS patients underwent any IR, all undergoing angioembolization. IR patients had an increased rate of operation (13.9% vs. 0%, p â= â0.049), but no difference in LRCs (44.4% vs. 43.5%) or mortality (5.6% vs. 8.7%) versus OBS patients (both p â> â0.05). CONCLUSION: Over 60% of patients were managed with IR initially. IR patients had an increased rate of operation yet similar rates of LRCs and mortality, suggesting initial OBS reasonable in appropriately selected HGLI â+ âExtrav patients.
ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: The management of liver injuries in hemodynamically stable patients is variable and includes primary treatment strategies of observation (OBS), angiography (interventional radiology [IR]) with angioembolization (AE), or operative intervention (OR). We aimed to evaluate the management of patients with liver injuries with active extravasation on computed tomography (CT) imaging, hypothesizing that AE will have more complications without improving outcomes compared with OBS. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Patients who underwent CT within 2 hours after arrival with extravasation (e.g., blush) on imaging were included. Exclusion criteria included cirrhosis, nontraumatic hemorrhage, transfers from outside facilities, and pregnancy. No hemodynamic exclusion criteria were used. The primary outcome was liver-specific complications. Secondary outcomes include length of stay and mortality. Angioembolization patients were compared with patients treated without AE. Propensity score matching was used to match based on penetrating mechanism, liver injury severity, arrival vital signs, and early transfusion. RESULTS: Twenty-three centers enrolled 192 patients. Forty percent of patients (n = 77) were initially OBS. Eleven OBS patients (14%) failed nonoperative management and went to IR or OR. Sixty-one patients (32%) were managed with IR, and 42 (69%) of these had AE as an initial intervention. Fifty-four patients (28%) went to OR+/- IR. After propensity score matching (n = 34 per group), there was no difference in baseline characteristics between AE and OBS. The AE group experienced more complications with a higher rate of IR-placed drains for abscess or biloma (22% vs. 0%, p = 0.01) and an increased overall length of stay ( p = 0.01). No difference was noted in transfusions or mortality. CONCLUSION: Observation is highly effective with few requiring additional interventions. Angioembolization was associated with higher rate of secondary drain placement for abscesses or biloma. Given this, a trial of OBS and avoidance of empiric AE may be warranted in hemodynamically stable, liver-injured patient with extravasation on CT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.
