Effect of angioembolization for isolated complex pelvic injury: A post-hoc analysis of a nationwide multicenter trauma database in Japan

Abstract

Background and importanceComplex pelvic injuries are among the types of trauma with the highest mortality. Treatment strategies should be based on the hemodynamic status, the anatomical type of fracture, and the associated injuries. Combination therapies, including preperitoneal pelvic packing, temporary mechanical stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, and angioembolization, are recommended for pelvic injuries. ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of urgent angioembolization alone on severe pelvic injury-associated mortality. Design, settings, and participantsWe used the Japan Trauma Data Bank database, a multicenter observational study, to retrospectively identify adult patients with isolated blunt pelvic injuries (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score: 3–5) from 2004 to 2018. Outcome measures and analysisThe primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. We subdivided patients into two groups, those who underwent urgent angioembolization and non-urgent angioembolization, and compared their mortality rates. We performed multiple imputation and multivariable analyzes to compare the mortality rates between groups after adjusting for known potential confounding factors (age, sex, Glasgow Coma Scale score, systolic blood pressure on hospital arrival, Injury Severity Score, pelvic AIS score, laparotomy, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, and external fixation) and for within-hospital clustering using the generalized estimating equation. Main resultsWe analyzed 4207 of 345,932 trauma patients, of whom 799 underwent urgent angioembolization. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly higher in the urgent embolization group than in the non-urgent embolization group (7.4 vs. 4.0%; p < 0.01). However, logistic regression analysis revealed that the mortality rates of patients with urgent angioembolization significantly decreased after adjusting for factors independently associated with mortality (odds ratio: 0.60; 95% confidence interval: 0.37–0.96; p = 0.03). ConclusionUrgent angioembolization may be an effective treatment for severe pelvic injury regardless of the pelvic AIS score and the systolic blood pressure on hospital arrival.