MultiCenter Study of Intra-Abdominal Abscess Formation After Major Operative Hepatic Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: One of the significant complications of operative liver trauma is intra-abdominal abscesses (IAA). The objective of this study was to determine risk factors associated with postoperative IAA in surgical patients with major operative liver trauma. METHODS: A retrospective multi-institutional study was performed at 13 Level 1 and Level 2 trauma centers from 2012 to 2021. Adult patients with major liver trauma (grade 3 and higher) requiring operative management were enrolled. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-two patients were included with 21.2% (n = 79/372) developing an IAA. No difference was found for age, gender, injury severity score, liver injury grade, and liver resections in patients between the groups (P > 0.05). Penetrating mechanism of injury (odds ratio (OR) 3.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54-7.57, P = 0.02), intraoperative massive transfusion protocol (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.23-4.79, P = 0.01), biloma/bile leak (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.01-4.53, P = 0.04), hospital length of stay (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.06, P < 0.001), and additional intra-abdominal injuries (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.09-4.72, P = 0.03) were independent risk factors for IAA. Intra-abdominal drains, damage control laparotomy, total units of packed red blood cells, number of days with an open abdomen, total abdominal surgeries, and blood loss during surgery were not found to be associated with a higher risk of IAA. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with penetrating trauma, massive transfusion protocol activation, longer hospital length of stay, and injuries to other intra-abdominal organs were at higher risk for the development of an IAA following operative liver trauma. Results from this study could help to refine existing guidelines for managing complex operative traumatic liver injuries.

Prehospital whole blood reduces early mortality in patients with hemorrhagic shock.

BACKGROUND: Low titer O+ whole blood (LTOWB) is being increasingly used for resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock in military and civilian settings. The objective of this study was to identify the impact of prehospital LTOWB on survival for patients in shock receiving prehospital LTOWB transfusion. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A single institutional trauma registry was queried for patients undergoing prehospital transfusion between 2015 and 2019. Patients were stratified based on prehospital LTOWB transfusion (PHT) or no prehospital transfusion (NT). Outcomes measured included emergency department (ED), 6-h and hospital mortality, change in shock index (SI), and incidence of massive transfusion. Statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 538 patients met inclusion criteria. Patients undergoing PHT had worse shock physiology (median SI 1.25 vs. 0.95, p < .001) with greater reversal of shock upon arrival (-0.28 vs. -0.002, p < .001). In a propensity-matched group of 214 patients with prehospital shock, 58 patients underwent PHT and 156 did not. Demographics were similar between the groups. Mean improvement in SI between scene and ED was greatest for patients in the PHT group with a lower trauma bay mortality (0% vs. 7%, p = .04). No survival benefit for patients in prehospital cardiac arrest receiving LTOWB was found (p > .05). DISCUSSION: This study demonstrated that trauma patients who received prehospital LTOWB transfusion had a greater improvement in SI and a reduction in early mortality. Patient with prehospital cardiac arrest did not have an improvement in survival. These findings support LTOWB use in the prehospital setting. Further multi-institutional prospective studies are needed.

From battlefront to homefront: creation of a civilian walking blood bank.

Hemorrhagic shock remains the leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield, despite major advances in trauma care. Early initiation of balanced resuscitation has been shown to decrease mortality in the hemorrhaging patient. To address transfusion limitations in austere environments or in the event of multiple casualties, walking blood banks have been used in the combat setting with great success. Leveraging the success of the region-wide whole blood program in San Antonio, Texas, we report a novel plan that represents a model response to mass casualty incidents.

Beta-adrenergic blockade for attenuation of catecholamine surge after traumatic brain injury: a randomized pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers have been proven in multiple studies to be beneficial in patients with traumatic brain injury. Few prospective studies have verified this and no randomized controlled trials. Additionally, most studies do not titrate the dose of beta-blockers to therapeutic effect. We hypothesize that propranolol titrated to effect will confer a survival benefit in patients with traumatic brain injury. METHODS: A randomized controlled pilot trial was performed during a 24-month period. Patients with traumatic brain injury were randomized to propranolol or control group for a 14-day study period. Variables collected included demographics, injury severity, physiologic parameters, urinary catecholamines, and outcomes. Patients receiving propranolol were compared with the control group. RESULTS: Over the study period, 525 patients were screened, 26 were randomized, and 25 were analyzed. Overall, the mean age was 51.3 years and the majority were male with blunt mechanism. The mean Injury Severity Score was 21.8 and median head Abbreviated Injury Scale score was 4. Overall mortality was 20.0%. Mean arterial pressure was higher in the treatment arm as compared with control (p=0.021), but no other differences were found between the groups in demographics, severity of injury, severity of illness, physiologic parameters, or mortality (7.7% vs. 33%; p=0.109). No difference was detected over time in any variables with respect to treatment, urinary catecholamines, or physiologic parameters. Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scores all improved over time. GCS at study end was significantly higher in the treatment arm (11.7 vs. 8.9; p=0.044). Finally, no difference was detected with survival analysis over time between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite not being powered to show statistical differences between groups, GCS at study end was significantly improved in the treatment arm and mortality was improved although not at a traditional level of significance. The study protocol was safe and feasible to apply to an appropriately powered larger multicenter study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2-therapeutic.

Emergency general surgery outcomes at safety net hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The United States hospital safety net is defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as the top decile of hospitals, which see the greatest proportion of uninsured patients. These hospitals provide important access to health care for uninsured patients but are commonly believed to have worse outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of emergency general surgery procedures performed at safety net and nonsafety net hospitals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2008-2010 was used to create a cohort of inpatients who underwent emergency appendectomy, cholecystectomy, or herniorrhaphy. Outcomes measured included length of stay, charge, cost, death in hospital, complications, and failure to rescue (FTR). Univariate and logistic regression analysis was performed to associate variables with outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 187,913 emergency general surgery cases were identified, 11.5% of which were performed at safety net hospitals. The safety net cohort had increased length of stay but lower mean charge and cost. Age, comorbidity score, black race, male gender, and Medicaid and Medicare insurance were associated with mortality, complication, and FTR. Lower socioeconomic status was associated with mortality and complication. Safety net status was positively associated with complication but not mortality or FTR. CONCLUSIONS: Safety net hospitals had higher complication rates but no difference in FTR or mortality. This may mean that the hospitals are able to effectively recognize and treat patient complications and do so without increased cost.