Marijuana may lead to increased platelet activity in trauma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Delta-9-tetraydrocannabinol (THC) usage is associated with venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in trauma patients. We hypothesized that THC â€‹+ â€‹trauma patients would have less platelet inhibition than THC - patients using thromboelastography with platelet mapping (TEG-PM). METHODS: Results from initial TEG- PM assays and patient's UDS were reviewed between 2019 and 2023. Mean levels of arachidonic acid (AA) and adenosine diphosphate (ADP) percent inhibition were compared by THC status. RESULTS: 793 patients had TEG-PM and UDS data. Mean levels of arachidonic acid (AA) percentage inhibition were 32.6 â€‹± â€‹34.2. AA inhibition was lower for THC â€‹+ â€‹vs THC- patients (THC+ 23.9 â€‹± â€‹27.0 vs THC- 34.3 â€‹± â€‹35.3, P â€‹< â€‹0.001). There was no association between THC status and ADP inhibition (THC+ 32.5 â€‹± â€‹27.1 vs THC- 30.8 â€‹± â€‹28.4, P â€‹= â€‹0.536). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, our data are the first to suggest a clinically measurable increase in platelet reactivity in THC â€‹+ â€‹trauma patients. More work is needed to determine if addition of aspirin to the chemoprophylaxis strategy for THC â€‹+ â€‹patients would mitigate the known association of THC with VTE.

The role of number of affected vessels on radiologic and clinical outcomes of patients with blunt cerebrovascular injury.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of data on the role of characteristics of injured vessels on the outcomes of patients with blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVIs). The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the number (single vs multiple) of injured vessels on outcomes. METHODS: This is a retrospective study at two American College of Surgeons Level I trauma centers (2017-2021). Adult (>16 years) trauma patients with BCVIs are included. Injuries were graded by the Denver Scale based on the initial computed tomography angiography (CTA). Early repeat CTA was performed 7 to 10 days after diagnosis. Patients were stratified by the number (single vs multiple) of the involved vessels. Outcomes included progression of BCVIs on repeat CTA, stroke, and in-hospital mortality attributable to BCVIs. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify the association between the number of injured vessels and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 491 patients with 591 injured vessels (285 carotid and 306 vertebral arteries) were identified. Sixty percent were male, the mean age was 44 years, and the median Injury Severity Score was 18 (interquartile range, 11-25). Overall, 18% had multiple-vessel injuries, 16% had bilateral vessel injuries, and 3% had multiple injuries on the same side. The overall rates of progression to higher-grade injuries, stroke, and mortality were 23%, 7.7%, and 8.8%, respectively. On uni- and multivariable analyses, multiple BCVIs were associated with progression to higher-grade injuries on repeat imaging, stroke, and mortality compared with single-vessel injuries. CONCLUSIONS: BCVIs with multiple injured vessels are more likely to progress to higher grades on repeat CTA, with multiple injuries independently associated with worse clinical outcomes, compared with those with single injuries. These findings highlight the importance of incorporating the number of injured vessels in clinical decision-making and in defining protocols for repeat imaging.

Abdominal computed tomography scoring systems and experienced radiologists in the radiological diagnosis of small bowel and mesenteric injury.

PURPOSE: Blunt bowel and/or mesenteric injury requiring surgery presents a diagnostic challenge. Although computed tomography (CT) imaging is standard following blunt trauma, findings can be nonspecific. Most studies have focused on the diagnostic value of CT findings in identifying significant bowel and/or mesenteric injury (sBMI). Some studies have described scoring systems to assist with diagnosis. Little attention, has been given to radiologist interpretation of CT scans. This study compared the discriminative ability of scoring systems (BIPS and RAPTOR) with radiologist interpretation in identifying sBMI. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of trauma patients with suspected sBMI. CT images were reviewed in a blinded fashion to calculate BIPS and RAPTOR scores. Sensitivity and specificity were compared between BIPS, RAPTOR, and the admission CT report with respect to identifying sBMI. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients were identified, 72 (44%) underwent laparotomy and 43 (26.5%) had sBMI. Sensitivity and specificity were: BIPS 49% and 87%, AUC 0.75 (0.67-0.81), P < 0.001; RAPTOR 46% and 82%, AUC 0.72 (0.64-0.79), P < 0.001; radiologist impression 81% and 71%, AUC 0.82(0.75-0.87), P < 0.001. The discriminative ability of the radiologist impression was higher than RAPTOR (P = 0.04) but not BIPS (P = 0.13). There was not a difference between RAPTOR vs. BIPS (P = 0.55). CONCLUSION: Radiologist interpretation of the admission CT scan was discriminative of sBMI. Although surgical vigilance, including evaluation of the CT images and patient, remains fundamental to early diagnosis, the radiologist's impression of the CT scan can be used in clinical practice to simplify the approach to patients with abdominal trauma.