The impact of urgency of repair on outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Current societal recommendations regarding the timing of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) vary. Prior studies have shown that elective repair was associated with lower mortality after TEVAR for BTAI. However, these studies lacked data such as Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grades and TEVAR-related postoperative outcomes. Therefore, we used the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, which includes relevant anatomic and outcome data, to examine the outcomes following urgent/emergent (≤ 24 hours) vs elective TEVAR for BTAI. METHODS: Patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI between 2013 and 2022 were included, excluding those with SVS grade 4 aortic injuries. We included covariates such as age, sex, race, transfer status, body mass index, preoperative hemoglobin, comorbidities, medication use, SVS aortic injury grade, coexisting injuries, Glasgow Coma Scale, and prior aortic surgery in a regression model to compute propensity scores for assignment to urgent/emergent or elective TEVAR. Perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality were evaluated using inverse probability-weighted logistic regression and Cox regression, also adjusting for left subclavian artery revascularization/occlusion and annual center and physician volumes. RESULTS: Of 1016 patients, 102 (10%) underwent elective TEVAR. Patients who underwent elective repair were more likely to undergo revascularization of the left subclavian artery (31% vs 7.5%; P < .001) and receive intraoperative heparin (94% vs 82%; P = .002). After inverse probability weighting, there was no association between TEVAR timing and perioperative mortality (elective vs urgent/emergent: 3.9% vs 6.6%; odds ratio [OR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-4.7; P = .90) and 5-year mortality (5.8% vs 12%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95; 95% CI, 0.21-4.3; P > .9).Compared with urgent/emergent TEVAR, elective repair was associated with lower postoperative stroke (1.0% vs 2.1%; adjusted OR [aOR], 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.94; P = .044), even after adjusting for intraoperative heparin use (aOR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.02-0.92; P = .042). Elective TEVAR was also associated with lower odds of failure of extubation immediately after surgery (39% vs 65%; aOR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.09-0.35; P < .001) and postoperative pneumonia (4.9% vs 11%; aOR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.91; P = .031), but comparable odds of any postoperative complication as a composite outcome and reintervention during index admission. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with BTAI who underwent elective TEVAR were more likely to receive intraoperative heparin. Perioperative mortality and 5-year mortality rates were similar between the elective and emergent/urgent TEVAR groups. Postoperatively, elective TEVAR was associated with lower ischemic stroke, pulmonary complications, and prolonged hospitalization. Future modifications in society guidelines should incorporate the current evidence supporting the use of elective TEVAR for BTAI. The optimal timing of TEVAR in patients with BTAI and the factors determining it should be the subject of future study to facilitate personalized decision-making.

Outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury stratified by Society for Vascular Surgery grade.

OBJECTIVES: Although the Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) aortic injury grading system is used to depict the severity of injury in patients with blunt thoracic aortic injury, prior literature on its association with outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is limited. METHODS: We identified patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI within the VQI between 2013 and 2022. We stratified patients based on their SVS aortic injury grade (grade 1, intimal tear; grade 2, intramural hematoma; grade 3, pseudoaneurysm; and grade 4, transection or extravasation). We assessed perioperative outcomes and 5-year mortality using multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses. Secondarily, we assessed the proportional trends in patients undergoing TEVAR based on SVS aortic injury grade over time. RESULTS: Overall, 1311 patients were included (grade1, 8%; grade 2, 19%; grade 3, 57%; grade 4, 17%). Baseline characteristics were similar, except for a higher prevalence of renal dysfunction, severe chest injury (Abbreviated Injury Score >3), and lower Glasgow Coma Scale with increasing aortic injury grade (Ptrend < .05). Rates of perioperative mortality by aortic injury grade were as follows: grade 1, 6.6%; grade 2, 4.9%; grade 3, 7.2%; and grade 4, 14% (Ptrend = .003) and 5-year mortality rates were 11% for grade 1, 10% for grade 2, 11% for grade 3, and 19% for grade 4 (P = .004). Patients with grade 1 injury had a high rate of spinal cord ischemia (2.8% vs grade 2, 0.40% vs grade 3, 0.40% vs grade 4, 2.7%; P = .008). After risk adjustment, there was no association between aortic injury grade and perioperative mortality (grade 4 vs grade 1, odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-3.5; P = .65), or 5-year mortality (grade 4 vs grade 1, hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-2.30; P = .82). Although there was a trend for decrease in the proportion of patients undergoing TEVAR with a grade 2 BTAI (22% to 14%; Ptrend = .084), the proportion for grade 1 injury remained unchanged over time (6.0% to 5.1%; Ptrend = .69). CONCLUSIONS: After TEVAR for BTAI, there was higher perioperative and 5-year mortality in patients with grade 4 BTAI. However, after risk adjustment, there was no association between SVS aortic injury grade and perioperative and 5-year mortality in patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI. More than 5% of patients with BTAI who underwent TEVAR had a grade 1 injury, with a concerning rate of spinal cord ischemia potentially attributable to TEVAR, and this proportion did not decrease over time. Further efforts should focus on enabling careful selection of patients with BTAI who will experience more benefit than harm from operative repair and preventing the inadvertent use of TEVAR in low-grade injuries.

Precision of limbal ischemia evaluation in ocular chemical injuries with anterior segment optical coherence tomography angiography.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the limbal ischemia objectively in ocular surface chemical injuries by using anterior segment optical coherence tomography angiography (AS-OCTA). METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, acute ocular surface chemical injury patients with less than 1 week injury history were enrolled. Demographic data of the patients were noted, and detailed ophthalmological examination with Dua classification was performed. AS photographs and AS-OCTA images were obtained and used for the assessment of limbal ischemia. To visualize the limbal vasculature, the device was focused manually to get a sharp image for all 4 quadrants of the limbus. The absence of vasculature was regarded as "ischemia," and the amount of the ischemia was defined in clock hours. The limbal ischemia detected in clinical evaluation with biomicroscopy was compared with the AS-OCTA detected ischemia amount to make a conclusion for the correlation. RESULTS: Nineteen eyes of 18 patients with acute ocular surface chemical injury were enrolled to the study (2 female, 16 male). The mean age was 35.1 ± 10 (18-55), and the mean best corrected visual acuity was 0.75 ± 1 (0.1-3.1) LogMAR. The causative agents were acid in 6 and alkaline in 12 patients. Limbal ischemia detected by using AS-OCTA was greater ((5.8 ± 2.6 (2-10) clock hours) than that detected in biomicroscopy (4.8 ± 2.4 (2-12) clock hours). The difference was statistically significant (p < 0.0005). CONCLUSION: AS-OCTA has a significant importance on limbal vascularity visualization; therefore, its use for more objective and sensitive evaluation of limbal ischemia in ocular surface chemical injuries seems to have a crucial impact. AS-OCTA images may reveal the extension of limbal ischemia more precisely than clinical evaluation with biomicroscopy. However, future studies with higher number of patients are needed to come to a specific conclusion.

Assessment of blunt splenic trauma: Which imaging scoring system is superior?

BACKGROUND: Spleen is the most common viscera that may be hurt in blunt abdominal trauma. Operative or nonoperative management of splenic injury is a dilemma. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) is the most common grading system which has been used for the management of blunt splenic injuries. The new recommended grading system assesses other aspects of splenic injury such as contrast extravasation, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, and severity of hemoperitoneum, as well. The aim of this study is to compare and prioritize the cutoff of AAST grading system with the new recommended one. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study on patients with splenic injury caused by abdominal blunt trauma referred to Isfahan University of Medical Sciences affiliated Hospitals, Iran, in 2013-2016. All patients underwent abdominopelvic computed tomography scanning with intravenous (IV) contrast. All images were reported by a single expert radiologist, and splenic injury grading was reported based on AAST and the new recommended system. Then, all patients were followed to see if they needed surgical or nonsurgical management. RESULTS: Based on the findings of this study conducted on 68 patients, cutoff point of Grade 2, in AAST system, had 90.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.97) specificity, 51.4% (95% CI: 0.34-0.67) sensitivity, 86.4% (95% CI: 0.64-0.95) positive predictive value (PPV), and 60.9% (95% CI: 0.45-0.74) negative predictive value (NPV) for prediction of surgical management requirement, while it was 90.3% (95% CI: 0.73-0.97) specificity, 45.9% (95% CI: 0.29-0.63) sensitivity, 85% (95% CI: 0.61-0.96) PPV, and 58.3% (95% CI: 0.43-0.72) NPV for the new system (P = 0.816). CONCLUSION: In contrast to the previous studies, the new splenic injury grading method was not superior to AAST. Further studies with larger populations are recommended.

Successful utilization of angioembolization and delayed laparoscopy in the management of grade 5 hepatic laceration: Case report and literature review.

INTRODUCTION: The liver is the most commonly injured solid organ in blunt abdominal trauma. Although the incidence of hepatic lacerations continues to rise, non-operative management with angioembolization is currently the standard of care. While active arterial hemorrhage is commonly embolized in grade 3 or 4 injuries, patients with grade 5 injuries frequently require operative intervention. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 30-year-old man presented to our level I trauma center following a motor scooter accident. CT abdominal imaging revealed a grade 5 right lobar hepatic laceration. He underwent successful angioembolization without further hemorrhage. The patient later developed abdominal discomfort that worsened to peritonitis and he was taken for laparoscopic drainage of massive hemoperitoneum with bile peritonitis. Postoperatively, the patient's abdominal pain abated and he tolerated oral dietary advancement. DISCUSSION: Surgical management of blunt hepatic trauma continues to evolve in tandem with minimally invasive interventional techniques. Patients with high-grade lacerations are at higher risk for developing biliary peritonitis, hemobilia, persistent hemoperitoneum, and venous hemorrhage after angioembolization. Accordingly, the primary role of surgery has shifted in select patients from laparotomy to delayed laparoscopy to address the aforementioned complications. CONCLUSION: While laparotomy remains crucial for hemodynamically unstable patients, angioembolization is the primary treatment option for stable patients with hemorrhage from liver trauma. The combination of angioembolization and delayed laparoscopy may be considered in stable patients with even the highest liver injury grades.

Incidence of urinary extravasation and rate of ureteral stenting after high-grade renal trauma in adults: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Collecting system injury and urinary extravasation is an important yet understudied aspect of renal trauma. We aimed to examine the incidence of urinary extravasation and also the rates of ureteral stenting after high-grade renal trauma (HGRT) in adults. METHODS: A search strategy was developed to search Ovid Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, followed by full-text review of the relevant publications. Studies were included if they indicated the number of patients with HGRT [the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grades III-IV or equivalents] and number of patients with urinary extravasation. A descriptive meta-analysis of binary proportions was performed with random-effects model to calculate the incidence of urinary extravasation and rates of ureteral stenting. RESULTS: After screening, 24 and 20 studies were included for calculating urinary extravasation and stenting rates, respectively. Most studies involved blunt injury and were retrospective single-center case series. Incidence of urinary extravasation was 29% (95% CI: 17-42%) after HGRT (grade III-V), and 51% (95% CI: 38-64%) when only grade IV-V injuries were combined. Overall, 29% (95% CI: 22-36%) of patients with urinary extravasation underwent ureteral stenting. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 30% of patients with HGRT are diagnosed with urinary extravasation and 29% of those with urinary extravasation undergo ureteral stenting. Understanding the rate of urinary extravasation and interventions is the first step in creating a prospective trial designed to demonstrate when ureteral stenting and aggressive management of urinary extravasation is needed.

Validation of the trauma mortality prediction scores from a Malaysian population.

BACKGROUND: Well-known trauma mortality prediction scores such as New Injury Severity Score (NISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), and Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) have been externally validated from high-income countries with established trauma databases. However, these scores were never used in Malaysian population. In this current study, we attempted to validate these scoring systems using our regional trauma surgery database. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the regional Malaysian Trauma Surgery Database was performed over a period of 3 years from May 2011 to April 2014. NISS, RTS, Major Trauma Outcome Study (MTOS)-TRISS, and National Trauma Database (NTrD)-TRISS scores were recorded and calculated. Individual scoring system's performance in predicting trauma mortality was compared by calculating the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve. Youden index and associated optimal cutoff values for each scoring system was calculated to predict mortality. The corresponding positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the cutoff values were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 2208 trauma patients (2004 blunt and 204 penetrating injuries) with mean age of 36 (SD = 16) years were included. There were 239 deaths with a corresponding mortality rate of 10.8%. The AUC calculated for the NISS, RTS, MTOS-TRISS, and NTrD-TRISS were 0.878, 0.802, 0.812, and 0.848, respectively. The NISS score with a cutoff value of 24, sensitivity of 86.6% and specificity of 74.3%, outperformed the rest (p < 0.001). Mortality was predicted by NISS with an overall accuracy of 75.6%; its positive predictive value was at 29.02% and negative predictive value at 97.86%. CONCLUSION: Amongst the four scores, the NISS score is the best trauma mortality prediction model suited for a local Malaysian trauma population. Further validation with multicentre data in the country may require to ascertain the finding.

Splenic rupture following colonoscopy: Case report and literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy is a safe and routinely performed diagnostic and therapeutic procedure for colorectal diseases. Although bleeding and perforation are most common complications, extra colonic or visceral injuries have been described. Splenic rupture is rare with few cases reported in current literature. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We report the case of a 73-year old man who presented to surgical consultation 50h after colonoscopy. Clinical, laboratory and imaging findings were suggestive for haemoperitoneum. At surgery an almost complete splenic disruption was evident and urgent splenectomy was performed. DISCUSSION: Splenic injury following colonoscopy is exceptional, probably related to instrumental looping with excessive traction on the splenocolic ligament. In patients with an early presentation a sudden onset of symptoms is the rule. By contrast a delayed presentation (>48h) is nonspecific and subtle with arduous diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Awareness of this potential complication, high level of suspicion and prompt treatment are at the basis of better outcomes in such patients.

The value of acute gastrointestinal injury grading combined with qSOFA score in the diagnosis of sepsis / 中华急诊医学杂志

Objective:To develop a prediction model of acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) grading combined with qSOFA score for the diagnosis of sepsis, and evaluate its value.Methods:This was a prospective observational study. The patients with infection or suspected infection in the General Ward of Changshu Hospital Affiliated to Soochow University from September 2018 to September 2019 were included. Patients younger than 18 years, pregnant, abandoned treatment and died within 3 days after admission were excluded. Clinical characteristics, laboratory test results and AGI grading from 48 h before the infection to 24 h after the onset of infection were recorded. The patients were divided into the sepsis and non-sepsis groups according to whether they were diagnosed with sepsis. The patients were allocated randomly to a modeling cohort and a validation cohort with a ratio of 7:3. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the relevant risk factors for sepsis in the modeling cohort. Three types of diagnostic models were constructed in the modeling cohort: model A (qSOFA model), model B (the combined model of AGI grading and qSOFA score), and model C (the combined model of clinical parameters). The clinical usefulness of the diagnostic models was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC), calibration curve and decision curve analysis (DCA) in the validation cohort. The nomograms were developed based on these models.Results:A total of 2 553 patients were enrolled in the study, 1 789 patients in the modeling cohort and 764 patients in the validation cohort. and 326 were diagnosed with sepsis. There was no statistical difference in the basic conditions of patients in the two groups. Univariate analysis showed that age, gender, the source of infection, temperature, heart rate, polypnea, changes in consciousness, severe edema, hyperglycemia, white blood cell, C-reactive protein and procalcitonin, hypotension, hypoxemia, acute oliguria, coagulation disorders, hyperlacticemia, capillary filling damage or piebaldskin, AGI grading and qSOFA score were significantly correlated with sepsis (all P<0.01). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that age ( OR=1.027, P<0.01), source of infection ( OR=2.809, P=0.03), hypotension ( OR=35.449, P<0.01), hypoxemia ( OR=57.018, P<0.01), and AGI grading ( OR=19.313, P<0.01) were significantly associated with sepsis. ROC analysis showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of model A, B and C were 0.784, 0.944 and 0.971 in the modeling cohort, and 0.832, 0.975 and 0.980 in the validation cohort, respectively. The sensitivities were 63.9%, 89.5% and 97.5% in the modeling cohort, and 72.7%, 90.9% and 96.6% in the validation cohort; and the specificities were 90.8%, 90.3% and 88.1% in the modeling cohort, and 92.2%, 94.5% and 92.8% in the validation cohort, respectively. AUC of model B and C were significantly higher than that of model A ( P<0.01). Model A in the validation cohort was poorly calibrated, with low accuracy and high risk of missed sepsis diagnosis ( P=0.044). The net benefits of model B and C were better than that of model A. Conclusions:AGI grading combined with qSOFA score has a high predictive value and accuracy in the diagnosis of sepsis.

Reliability of injury grading systems for patients with blunt splenic trauma.

OBJECTIVES: The most widely used grading system for blunt splenic injury is the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) organ injury scale. In 2007 a new grading system was developed. This 'Baltimore CT grading system' is superior to the AAST classification system in predicting the need for angiography and embolization or surgery. The objective of this study was to assess inter- and intraobserver reliability between radiologists in classifying splenic injury according to both grading systems. METHODS: CT scans of 83 patients with blunt splenic injury admitted between 1998 and 2008 to an academic Level 1 trauma centre were retrospectively reviewed. Inter and intrarater reliability were expressed in Cohen's or weighted Kappa values. RESULTS: Overall weighted interobserver Kappa coefficients for the AAST and 'Baltimore CT grading system' were respectively substantial (kappa=0.80) and almost perfect (kappa=0.85). Average weighted intraobserver Kappa's values were in the 'almost perfect' range (AAST: kappa=0.91, 'Baltimore CT grading system': kappa=0.81). CONCLUSION: The present study shows that overall the inter- and intraobserver reliability for grading splenic injury according to the AAST grading system and 'Baltimore CT grading system' are equally high. Because of the integration of vascular injury, the 'Baltimore CT grading system' supports clinical decision making. We therefore recommend use of this system in the classification of splenic injury.

Comparison of two nasal-jejunal tube placement methods in critically ill patients with different acute gastrointestinal injury grades / 第二军医大学学报

Objective To compare two asal-jejunal tube placement methods in critically ill patients with different acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) grades, so as to discuss the value of AGI grading in selection of asal-jejunal tube placement. Methods A total of 156 patients with acute gastrointestinal injury in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) were observed prospectively; they included 30 cases of grade III, 48 cases of grade IV, 50 cases of grade I and 28 cases of grade II according to the AGI grading system. And then the patients were randomly divided into treatment group and control group. The treatment group was given bedside ultrasound-guided nasal-jejunal tube placement, and the control group underwent bedside blind nasal jejunal tube placement. The success rate and average time of placement were observed in the two groups with different AGI grades, and then the correlation among AGI grading system, success rate and average time of placement were also analyzed in the two groups. Results The success rate of placement was high in AGI grade I patients of the two groups, and there was no significant difference between the two groups(93.8% vs 92.9%). The success rates for AGI grade II and grade III patients of the treatment group were significantly higher than those of the control group(P<0.05). The successful placement rates were lower in AGI grade IV patients of the two groups and there was no significant difference between them. The average time of successful placement in AGI gradesI,II, and III patients of the treatment group were significantly shorter than that of the control group (P<0.05); but there was no significant difference in AGI grade IV patients between the two groups. There was no significant correlation between AGI grade and successful placement rate. There was a positive correlation between AGI grade and the average placement time in the treatment group (P<0.05), but not in the control group. Conclusion Ultrasound-guided nasal-jejunal tube placement is obviously better than the blind method for AGI grade I, II, III patients. The average time of ultrasound-guided nasal-jejunal tube placement is positively correlated with AGI grade, suggesting AGI grading system can help to choose naso-jejunal tube placement method.

Predictive value of AGI grading system introduced into SOFA score in patients with severe acute pancreatitis / 中华急诊医学杂志

Objective To study the predictive value of acute gastrointestinal injury (AGI) grading system introduced into Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) in order to provide a reliable clinical tool for the evaluation of prognosis of SAP.Methods Patients with acute pancreatitis admitted to ICU from July 2012 to July 2014 were enrolled for study.The criteria of exclusion were the age below 18 years old,pregnancy,or patients without consent to the treatment.A total of 63 patients with 37 males and 26 females aged (47 ± 15.3) years were included.The data of their acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) Ⅱ score,the highest SOFA score and AGI grade within the first week,and the 28-day mortality rate were collected.Patients without AGI were defined as zero point,and AGI grade Ⅰ-Ⅳ were defined as 1-4 points.The receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was used to evaluate the value of APACHE Ⅱ score,SOFA score,and SOFA + AGI score in predicting the prognosis of SAP.The areas under ROC curve (AUC) of the APACHE Ⅱ score,SOFA score,and SOFA + AGI score were compared with MedCalc software,and P value less than 0.01 was considered to be statistical significance.Results (1) The 28-day mortality of the 63 patients with SAP was 20.6％ (13/63),in which 50 patients in the survival group,13 patients in the death group.The APACHEⅡ scores of two groups were (15.62 ± 4.33 vs.12.10 ± 3.74,P=0.0048),the SOFA scores were (14.77 ± 3.09 vs.9.24 ± 2.88,P ＜0.01),and the SOFA + AGI scores were (18.77 ±3.09 vs.10.74 ± 3.17,P＜0.01).(2) The AUC of APACHEⅡ score was0.748 ± 0.084 (95％ CI:0.622-0.849),the AUC of SOFA score was 0.902 ± 0.059 (95％ CI:0.801-0.962),and the AUC of SOFA +AGI score was 0.963 ± 0.037 (95％ CI,0.882-0.994);There was no significant difference in AUC between APACHE Ⅱ score and SOFA score (P =0.10),and there was statistical significance between the AUC of APACHE Ⅱ score and that of SOFA + AGI score (P =0.013),and the difference in AUC between SOFA score and SOFA + AGI score was statistically significant (P =0.008).The Youden index and the positive likelihood ratio of SOFA + AGI score system were the greatest to be 0.863 and 15.38,respectively.Conclusions SOFA scoring system has better predictive value in patients with SAP when AGI grading system was introduced into it.