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.

Does lower extremity fracture fixation technique influence neurologic outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury? The EAST Brain vs. Bone multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether lower extremity fracture fixation technique and timing (≤24 vs. >24 hours) impact neurologic outcomes in TBI patients. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted across 30 trauma centers. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years and older, head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of >2, and a diaphyseal femur or tibia fracture requiring external fixation (Ex-Fix), intramedullary nailing (IMN), or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The analysis was conducted using analysis of variamce, Kruskal-Wallis, and multivariable regression models. Neurologic outcomes were measured by discharge Ranchos Los Amigos Revised Scale (RLAS-R). RESULTS: Of the 520 patients enrolled, 358 underwent Ex-Fix, IMN, or ORIF as definitive management. Head AIS was similar among cohorts. The Ex-Fix group experienced more severe lower extremity injuries (AIS score, 4-5) compared with the IMN group (16% vs. 3%, p = 0.01) but not the ORIF group (16% vs. 6%, p = 0.1). Time to operative intervention varied between the cohorts with the longest time to intervention for the IMN group (median hours: Ex-Fix, 15 [8-24] vs. ORIF, 26 [12-85] vs. IMN, 31 [12-70]; p < 0.001). The discharge RLAS-R score distribution was similar across the groups. After adjusting for confounders, neither method nor timing of lower extremity fixation influenced the discharge RLAS-R. Instead, increasing age and head AIS score were associated with a lower discharge RLAS-R score (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.002-1.03 and OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.75-3.22), and a higher Glasgow Coma Scale motor score on admission (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97) was associated with higher RLAS-R score at discharge. CONCLUSION: Neurologic outcomes in TBI are impacted by severity of the head injury and not the fracture fixation technique or timing. Therefore, the strategy of definitive fixation of lower extremity fractures should be dictated by patient physiology and the anatomy of the injured extremity and not by the concern for worsening neurologic outcomes in TBI patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Surgical stabilization versus nonoperative treatment for flail and non-flail rib fracture patterns in patients with traumatic brain injury.

PURPOSE: Literature on outcomes after SSRF, stratified for rib fracture pattern is scarce in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI; Glasgow Coma Scale ≤ 12). We hypothesized that SSRF is associated with improved outcomes as compared to nonoperative management without hampering neurological recovery in these patients. METHODS: A post hoc subgroup analysis of the multicenter, retrospective CWIS-TBI study was performed in patients with TBI and stratified by having sustained a non-flail fracture pattern or flail chest between January 1, 2012 and July 31, 2019. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation-free days and secondary outcomes were in-hospital outcomes. In multivariable analysis, outcomes were assessed, stratified for rib fracture pattern. RESULTS: In total, 449 patients were analyzed. In patients with a non-flail fracture pattern, 25 of 228 (11.0%) underwent SSRF and in patients with a flail chest, 86 of 221 (38.9%). In multivariable analysis, ventilator-free days were similar in both treatment groups. For patients with a non-flail fracture pattern, the odds of pneumonia were significantly lower after SSRF (odds ratio 0.29; 95% CI 0.11-0.77; p = 0.013). In patients with a flail chest, the ICU LOS was significantly shorter in the SSRF group (beta, - 2.96 days; 95% CI - 5.70 to - 0.23; p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: In patients with TBI and a non-flail fracture pattern, SSRF was associated with a reduced pneumonia risk. In patients with TBI and a flail chest, a shorter ICU LOS was observed in the SSRF group. In both groups, SSRF was safe and did not hamper neurological recovery.

Outcome after surgical stabilization of rib fractures versus nonoperative treatment in patients with multiple rib fractures and moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (CWIS-TBI).

BACKGROUND: Outcomes after surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) have not been studied in patients with multiple rib fractures and traumatic brain injury (TBI). We hypothesized that SSRF, as compared with nonoperative management, is associated with favorable outcomes in patients with TBI. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective cohort study was performed in patients with rib fractures and TBI between January 2012 and July 2019. Patients who underwent SSRF were compared to those managed nonoperatively. The primary outcome was mechanical ventilation-free days. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit length of stay and hospital length of stay, tracheostomy, occurrence of complications, neurologic outcome, and mortality. Patients were further stratified into moderate (GCS score, 9-12) and severe (GCS score, ≤8) TBI. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 456 patients of which 111 (24.3%) underwent SSRF. The SSRF was performed at a median of 3 days, and SSRF-related complication rate was 3.6%. In multivariable analyses, there was no difference in mechanical ventilation-free days between the SSRF and nonoperative groups. The odds of developing pneumonia (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.38-0.98; p = 0.043) and 30-day mortality (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11-0.91; p = 0.032) were significantly lower in the SSRF group. Patients with moderate TBI had similar outcome in both groups. In patients with severe TBI, the odds of 30-day mortality was significantly lower after SSRF (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.88; p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: In patients with multiple rib fractures and TBI, the mechanical ventilation-free days did not differ between the two treatment groups. In addition, SSRF was associated with a significantly lower risk of pneumonia and 30-day mortality. In patients with moderate TBI, outcome was similar. In patients with severe TBI a lower 30-day mortality was observed. There was a low SSRF-related complication risk. These data suggest a potential role for SSRF in select patients with TBI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level IV.