Angioembolization Research Articles

Observation-first versus angioembolization-first approach in stable patients with blunt liver trauma: A WTA multicenter study.

Prior studies evaluating observation versus angioembolization (AE) for blunt liver injuries (BLT) with contrast extravasation (CE) on computed tomography imaging have yielded inconsistent conclusions, primarily due to limitations in single-center and/or retrospective study design. Therefore, this multicenter study aims to compare an observation versus AE-first approach for BLT, hypothesizing decreased liver-related complications (LRCs) with observation. We conducted a post hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective observational study (2019-2021) across 23 centers. Adult patients with BLT + CE undergoing observation or AE within 8 hours of arrival were included. The primary outcome was LRCs, defined as perihepatic fluid collection, bile leak/biloma, pseudoaneurysm, hepatic necrosis, and/or hepatic abscess. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate risk factors associated with LRCs. From 128 patients presenting with BLT + CE on imaging, 71 (55.5%) underwent observation-first and 57 (45.5%) AE-first management. Both groups were comparable in age, vitals, mechanism of injury, and shock index (all p > 0.05), however the AE group had increased frequency of American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Grade IV injuries (51.0% vs. 22.0%, p = 0.002). The AE cohort demonstrated increased rates of in-hospital LRCs (36.8% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.038), emergency department representation (25.0% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.025), and hospital readmission for LRCs (12.3% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.012). However, the two cohorts had similar mortality rates (5.7% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.912). After adjusting for age, ISS, and grade of liver injury, an AE-first approach had a similar associated risk of LRCs compared with observation-first management (odds ratio, 1.949; 95% confidence interval, 0.673-5.643; p = 0.219). Patients with blunt liver injury and CE undergoing an observation-first approach were associated with a similar adjusted risk of LRCs and rate of mortality compared with AE-first approach. Overall, this calls for reevaluation of the role of routine AE in blunt liver trauma patients with CE. Future prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings. Therapeutic/Care Management, Level IV.

Angioembolization in patients with blunt splenic trauma in Germany -guidelines vs. Reality a retrospective registry-based cohort study of the TraumaRegister DGU®.

Nonoperative management (NOM) for blunt splenic injuries (BSIs) is supported by both international and national guidelines in Germany, with high success rates even for severe organ injuries. Angioembolization (ANGIO) has been recommended for stabilizable patients with BSI requiring intervention since the 2016 German National Trauma Guideline. The objectives were to study treatment modalities in the adult BSI population according to different severity parameters including NOM, ANGIO and splenectomy in Germany. Between 2015 and 2020, a retrospective registry-based cohort study was performed on patients with BSIs with an Abbreviated Injury Score ≥ 2 in Germany using registry data from the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR DGU). This registry includes patients which were treated in a resuscitation room and spend more than 24-h in an intensive care unit or died in the resuscitation room. A total of 2,782 patients with BSIs were included in the analysis. ANGIO was used in 28 patients (1.0%). NOM was performed in 57.5% of all patients, predominantly those with less severe organ injuries measured by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale (AAST) ≤ 2. The splenectomy rate for patients with an AAST ≥ 3 was 58.5%, and the overall mortality associated with BSI was 15%. In this cohort splenic injuries AAST ≥ 3 were predominantly managed surgically and ANGIO was rarely used to augment NOM. Therefore, clinical reality deviates from guideline recommendations regarding the use of ANGIO and NOM. Local interdisciplinary treatment protocols might close that gap in the future.

Carbon dioxide angiography during angioembolization for trauma patients increases the detection of active bleeding and leads to reliable hemostasis: a retrospective, observational study.

Angiography with carbon dioxide (CO2) has long been used as an alternative when iodine contrast media (ICM) cannot be used due to allergy to iodine or renal dysfunction. Conversely, CO2 angiography is also known as a provocation method for active bleeding. In this study, we examined the efficacy of CO2 angiography in angioembolization (AE) for trauma patients. This was a single-center, retrospective, observational study of trauma patients who underwent AE at our facility between January 2012 and April 2023. Within this period, 335 AEs were performed. CO2 angiography was performed in 102 patients (30.4%), and in 113 procedures. CO2angiography was used to provoke active bleeding which went undetected using ICM in 83 procedures, and to confirm hemostasis after embolization in 30 procedures. Of the 80 procedures wherein, active bleeding was not detected on ICM, 35 procedures (43.8%) were detected using CO2. The spleen had the highest detection rate of active bleeding by CO2 angiography among the organs. There were 4/102 (1.9%) patients with CO2 contrast who underwent some form of reintervention. Two patients were re-embolized with n-butyl-2-cyanoacrylate because of recanalization after embolization with gelatin sponge. The other two patients had pseudoaneurysm formation which required reintervention, and CO2 angiography was not used. Vomiting was the most common complication of CO2 angiography in 10 patients (9.8%), whereas all were transient and did not require treatment. CO2 angiography of trauma patients may have a better detection rate of active bleeding compared with ICM, leading to reliable hemostasis.

Comparison of Conventional versus Modified Preperitoneal Pelvic Packing in Patients with Bleeding Pelvic Fractures: A Single-Center Retrospective Pilot Study.

Background: Bleeding pelvic fractures have high mortality rates, primarily due to severe hemorrhage. Treatment options include mechanical stabilization based on preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP), resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta, and angioembolization (AE). The bilateral preperitoneal approach, which uses three pads on each side, is the conventional PPP method. We aimed to compare the bilateral preperitoneal approach with a modified approach, involving selectively packing only heavily bleeding areas, in terms of clinical outcomes and mortality risks. Methods: We included patients who underwent PPP and compared the outcomes between conventional (three sponges placed on each side) and modified PPP (selective packing of critical areas). The primary outcome was 30-day mortality; the secondary outcomes included 24 h mortality, pelvic complications, and transfusion requirements. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine risk factors for 30-day and 24 h mortality. Results: Among the 47 included patients, 19 and 28 underwent conventional and modified PPP, respectively. There were no significant between-group differences in the 24 h (26.3% vs. 42.9%, p = 0.247) and 30-day mortality rates (47.4% vs. 60.7%, p = 0.366). Using univariate and multivariate analyses, initial lactate levels and the decision to perform AE were found to be significant risk factors for mortality. However, the selected PPP method was not a risk factor for 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27-18.26; p = 0.457) or 24 hr mortality (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 0.24-13.19; p = 0.557). Conclusions: The modified PPP method may be considered in patients with bleeding pelvic fractures for effective bleeding control while minimizing potential complications associated with the conventional PPP.

Factors Associated With Pelvic Infection After Pre-Peritoneal Pelvic Packing for Hemodynamically Unstable Pelvic Fractures.

Background: Preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) and external fixation has led to improved mortality after devastating pelvic trauma. However, there is limited literature on infection after this intervention. We aim to study the risk factors associated with pelvic infection after PPP. Patients and Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent PPP at a single level 1 trauma center was performed. Results: Over the 18-year study period, 222 patients were identified. Twenty-three percent of patients had an open fracture. Pelvic angiography was performed in 24% of patients with 16% requiring angioembolization (AE). The average time to packing removal was two (one to two days) days, although 10% of patients had their pelvis re-packed. Overall infection rate was 14% (n = 31); if pelvic re-packing was performed, the infection rate increased to 45%. Twenty-two of the patients with an infection required additional procedures for their infection, and ultimately hardware removal occurred in eight patients. On univariable analysis, patients with pelvic infections had more open fractures (55% vs. 17%; p < 0.01), underwent AE more frequently (29% vs. 14%; p = 0.04), were more likely to undergo repacking (32% vs. 6%; p < 0.01), and had packing in place for longer (2 [1,2] vs. 2 [2,3]; p = 0.01). On logistic multivariable regression analysis, open fracture (odds ratio [OR], 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-14.1) and pelvic re-packing (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.2-18.5) were independent risk factors for pelvic infection. Conclusions: Pelvic infection after PPP is a serious complication independently associated with open fracture and re-packing of the pelvis. Re-intervention was required in most patients with infection.

Angioembolization Has Similar Efficacy and Lower Total Charges than Preperitoneal Pelvic Packing in Patients With Pelvic Ring or Acetabulum Fractures.

To compare cost, hospital-related outcomes, and mortality between angioembolization (AE) and preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) in the setting of pelvic ring or acetabulum fractures. . Retrospective database review. National Inpatient Sample, years 2016-2020. Hospitalized adult patients who underwent AE or PPP in the setting of a pelvic ring or acetabulum fracture. Mortality and hospital-associated outcomes, including total charges, following AE versus PPP in the setting of pelvic ring or acetabulum fractures. A total of 3780 patients, 3620 undergoing AE and 160 undergoing PPP, were included. No significant differences in mortality, length of stay, time to procedure, or discharge disposition were found ( P > 0.05); however, PPP was associated with significantly greater charges than AE ( P = 0.04). Patients who underwent AE had a mean total charge of $250,062.88 while those undergoing PPP had a mean total charge of $369,137.16. Despite equivalent clinical efficacy in terms of mortality and hospital-related outcomes, PPP was associated with significantly greater charges than AE in the setting of pelvic ring or acetabulum fractures. This data information can inform clinical management of these patients and assist trauma centers in resource allocation. Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Outcomes of Preperitoneal Packing and Angioembolization for Hemorrhage Control in Hemodynamically Unstable Pelvic Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures are often life-threatening injuries; however, the optimal management remains uncertain. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the most appropriate primary management of hemorrhage in adult patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures by comparing outcomes following the initial use of preperitoneal packing (PPP) vs angioembolization (AE). A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and ProQuest databases was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Studies assessing hemorrhage management in trauma patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures were included. The data extracted from selected articles included patient demographics, study design, and outcomes such as 24-hour PRBC transfusions, in-hospital mortality, and DVT rate. Eight articles were included in the systematic review. Among the included studies, 2040 patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures were analyzed. Meta-analyses revealed that treatment with PPP was associated with fewer 24-hour PRBC transfusions (mean difference = -1.0, 95% CI: -1.8 to -.2) than AE. However, no significant differences were noted in in-hospital mortality (RR: .91, 95% CI: .80-1.05) and the rate of deep vein thrombosis (RR: .89, 95% CI: .62-1.28) between groups. The findings of this study suggest that primary management with PPP was associated with fewer 24-hour PRBC transfusions compared to AE. The choice of primary management with PPP or AE did not significantly impact in-hospital mortality. Future studies should address clinical outcomes and the factors that affect them to better understand the impact of different management strategies and direct the creation of practice management guidelines.

Utilization of Angiography in Pediatric Blunt Abdominal Injury at Adult versus Pediatric Trauma Centers

IntroductionAngiography has been widely accepted as an adjunct in the management of blunt abdominal trauma in adults. However, the role of angiography with or without angioembolization (AE) is still being defined in pediatric solid organ injury. We sought to compare the use of angiography in solid organ injury (SOI) at pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) versus an adult trauma center (ATC) in a large metropolitan city. MethodsData were drawn from a collaborative effort of three Trauma centers (one adult and two pediatric) in Atlanta, GA. All pediatric patients (ages 1-18) treated for SOI between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2021 were included (n = 350). Registry data obtained included demographics, mechanism of injury, injury grade, injury severity score (ISS), procedures performed, and transfusions. Multivariate regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with angiography. ResultsA total of 350 patients were identified during the study period with 101 treated at ATC and 249 treated at the two PTCs. The median age at the ATC was 17 y (IQR 16, 18) compared to nine (6, 13) at the PTCs. ISS was significantly higher at the ATC 22 (14, 34) compared to 16 (9, 22) at PTCs (P < 0.001). At the ATC, 11 (10.9%) patients underwent angiography, 4 (4.9%) of which underwent AE compared to seven (2.8%) patients who underwent angiography and AE at PTCs. In the multivariate analysis, factors associated with angiography use included age (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.09-1.90, P = 0.010) and ISS (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02-1.09, P = 0.004). Through setting, ATC versus PTC was significant on univariable analysis, it did not remain a significant predictor of angiography on multivariable regression. ConclusionsOur study demonstrated increased utilization of angiography for the management of SOI in pediatric patients treated at ATCs versus PTCs. On regression analysis, age and ISS remained significant predictors for angiography utilization, while setting (ATC versus PTC) was notably not a significant predictor. This data would suggest that differences in angiography utilization for pediatric SOI at PTCs and ATCs are influenced by differing patient populations (older and higher ISS), with otherwise uniform use. These findings provide a basis for future treatment algorithm revisions for pediatric blunt abdominal trauma that include angiography and provide support for the development of formal guidelines.

Association Between Preoperative Angioembolization and Bleeding Complications in Patients With Benign Liver Tumors: Analysis of a National Database

IntroductionThe role of angioembolization (AE) in patients with benign liver diseases is an area of active research. This study aims to assess any difference in liver resection outcomes in patients with benign tumors dependent on utilization of preoperative AE. MethodsA retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing elective liver resections for benign liver tumors was performed using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2014-2019). Only tumors of 5 cm in size or more were included in the analysis. We categorized the patients based on preoperative AE (AE + versus AE -). The primary outcome measured included bleeding complications within 72 h. The secondary outcomes were to determine predictors of bleeding. ResultsAfter propensity score matching, there were 103 patients in both groups. There was no difference in intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusions within 72 h of surgery (14.6% versus 12.6%; P = 0.68), reoperation (1.9% versus 1.9%; P = 1), or mortality (1.0% versus 0.0%; P = 1) between the two groups. Multivariate regression analysis revealed an open surgical approach (odds ratio [OR]: 4.59 confidence interval [CI]: 2.94-7.16), use of Pringle maneuver (OR: 1.7, CI: 1.26-2.310), preoperative anemia (OR: 2.79, CI: 2.05-3.80), and preoperative hypoalbuminemia (OR: 1.53 [1.14-2.05]) were associated with the need for intraoperative or postoperative blood transfusions within 72 h of surgery. ConclusionsPreoperative AE was not associated with reducing intraoperative or postoperative bleeding complications or blood transfusions within 72 h after surgery.

Standard practice in the treatment of unstable pelvic ring injuries: an international survey

PurposeUnstable pelvic ring injury can result in a life-threatening situation and lead to long-term disability. Established classification systems, recently emerged resuscitative and treatment options as well as techniques, have facilitated expansion in how these injuries can be studied and managed. This study aims to access practice variation in the management of unstable pelvic injuries around the globe.MethodsA standardized questionnaire including 15 questions was developed by experts from the SICOT trauma committee (Société Internationale de Chirurgie Orthopédique et de Traumatologie) and then distributed among members. The survey was conducted online for one month in 2022 with 358 trauma surgeons, encompassing responses from 80 countries (experience > 5 years = 79%). Topics in the questionnaire included surgical and interventional treatment strategies, classification, staging/reconstruction procedures, and preoperative imaging. Answer options for treatment strategies were ranked on a 4-point rating scale with following options: (1) always (A), (2) often (O), (3) seldom (S), and (4) never (N). Stratification was performed according to geographic regions (continents).ResultsThe Young and Burgess (52%) and Tile/AO (47%) classification systems were commonly used. Preoperative three-dimensional (3D) computed tomography (CT) scans were utilized by 93% of respondents. Rescue screws (RS), C-clamps (CC), angioembolization (AE), and pelvic packing (PP) were observed to be rarely implemented in practice (A + O: RS = 24%, CC = 25%, AE = 21%, PP = 25%). External fixation was the most common method temporized fixation (A + O = 71%). Percutaneous screw fixation was the most common definitive fixation technique (A + O = 57%). In contrast, 3D navigation techniques were rarely utilized (A + O = 15%). Most standards in treatment of unstable pelvic ring injuries are implemented equally across the globe. The greatest differences were observed in augmented techniques to bleeding control, such as angioembolization and REBOA, more commonly used in Europe (both), North America (both), and Oceania (only angioembolization).ConclusionThe Young-Burgess and Tile/AO classifications are used approximately equally across the world. Initial non-invasive stabilization with binders and temporary external fixation are commonly utilized, while specific haemorrhage control techniques such as pelvic packing and angioembolization are rarely and REBOA almost never considered. The substantial regional differences’ impact on outcomes needs to be further explored.

Preperitoneal Pelvic Packing versus Angioembolization for Patients with Hemodynamically Unstable Pelvic Fractures with Pelvic Bleeding: A Single-Centered Retrospective Study.

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) and angioembolization (AE) for patients with equivocal vital signs after initial resuscitation. This single-centered retrospective study included information from the database of a regional trauma center from April 2014 to December 2022 for patients with pelvic fractures with a systolic blood pressure of 80-100 mmHg after initial fluid resuscitation. The patients' characteristics, outcomes, and details of AE after resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) placed in zone III were collected. The follow-up duration was from hospital admission to discharge. A total of 65 patients were enrolled in this study. Their mean age was 59.2 ± 18.1 years, and 40 were males. We divided the enrolled patients into PPP (n = 43) and AE (n = 22) groups. The median time from emergency department (ED) to procedure and the median duration of ED stay were significantly longer in the AE group than in the PPP group (p ≤ 0.001 for both). The median mechanical ventilation (MV) duration was significantly shorter (p = 0.046) in the AE group. The number of patients with complications, overall mortality, and mortality due to hemorrhage did not differ between the two groups. Three patients (13.6%) were successfully treated with AE after REBOA. AE may be beneficial for patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures who show equivocal vital signs after initial fluid resuscitation in terms of reducing the MV duration and incidence of infectious complications.

Angioembolization May Improve Survival in Patients With Severe Hepatic Injuries.

Although reports on angioembolization (AE) show favorable results for severe hepatic trauma, information is lacking on its benefit in the management and mechanisms of injury (MOI). This study examined patient outcomes with severe hepatic injuries to determine the association of in-hospital mortality with AE. The hypothesis is that AE is associated with increased survival in severe hepatic injuries. Demographics, age, sex, MOI, shock index (SI), ≥6 units packed red blood cells (PRBCs) per hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, injury severity score (ISS), and AE were collected. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Patients were stratified into groups according to MOI, AE, and operative vs non-operative management. Multivariable logistic regression determined the independent association of mortality with AE vs no AE and operative vs nonoperative management and modeled the odds of mortality controlling for MOI, AE vs no AE, age and ISS groups, SI >.9, and ≥6 units PRBCs/LOS. From 2013 to 2018, 2462 patients (1744 blunt; 718 penetrating) were treated for severe hepatic injuries. AE was used in only 21% of patients. Mortality rates increased with higher ISS and age. AE was associated with mortality when compared to patients who did not undergo AE. The strongest associations with mortality were ISS ≥25, transfusion ≥ 6units PRBCs/LOS, and age ≥65years. AE is underutilized in severe hepatic trauma. AE may be a valuable adjunct in the treatment of severe hepatic injuries especially in older patients and those needing exploratory laparotomy.

Management of adult renal trauma: a practice management guideline from the eastern association for the surgery of trauma

BackgroundThe kidney is the most frequently injured component of the genitourinary system, accounting for 5% of all trauma cases. Several guidelines by different societies address the management of urological trauma. However, unanswered questions remain regarding optimal use of angioembolization in hemodynamically stable patients, indications for operative exploration of stable retroperitoneal hematomas and renal salvage techniques in the setting of hemodynamic instability, and imaging practices for patients undergoing non-operative management. We performed a systematic review, meta-analysis, and developed evidence-based recommendations to answer these questions in both blunt and penetrating renal trauma.MethodsThe working group formulated four population, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO) questions regarding the following topics: (1) angioembolization (AE) usage in hemodynamically stable patients with evidence of ongoing bleeding; (2) surgical approach to stable zone II hematomas (exploration vs. no exploration) in hemodynamically unstable patients and (3) surgical technique (nephrectomy vs. kidney preservation) for expanding zone II hematomas in hemodynamically unstable patients; (4) frequency of repeat imaging (routine or symptom based) in high-grade traumatic renal injuries. A systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available evidence was performed. RevMan 5 (Cochran Collaboration) and GRADEpro (Grade Working Group) software were used. Recommendations were voted on by working group members and concurrence was obtained for each final recommendation.ResultsA total of 20 articles were identified and analyzed. Two prospective studies were encountered; the majority were retrospective, single-institution studies. Not all outcomes projected by PICO questions were reported in all studies. Meta-analysis was performed for all PICO questions except PICO 3 secondary to the discrepant patient populations included in those studies. PICO 1 had the greatest number of articles included in the meta-analysis with nine studies; yet, due to differences in study design, no critical outcomes emerged; similar differences among a smaller set of articles prevented observation of critical outcomes for PICO 4. Analyses of PICOs 2 and 3 favored a non-invasive or minimally invasive approach in-line with current international practice trends.ConclusionIn hemodynamically stable adult patients with clinical or radiographic evidence of ongoing bleeding, no recommendation could be made regarding the role of AE vs. observation. In hemodynamically unstable adult patients, we conditionally recommend no renal exploration vs. renal exploration in stable zone II hematomas. In hemodynamically unstable adult patients, we conditionally recommend kidney preserving techniques vs. nephrectomy in expanding zone II hematomas. No recommendation could be made for the optimal timing of repeat imaging in high grade renal injury.Level of evidence: Guideline; systematic review, level III.

Association Between Hemorrhage Control Interventions and Mortality in US Trauma Patients With Hemodynamically Unstable Pelvic Fractures

Management of hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures remains a challenge. Hemostatic interventions are used alone or in combination. There is a paucity of data on the association between the pattern of hemorrhage control interventions and outcomes after a severe pelvic fracture. To characterize clinical outcomes and study the patterns of hemorrhage control interventions in hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. In this cohort study, a retrospective review was performed of data from the 2017 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database, a national multi-institutional database of trauma patients in the United States. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with pelvic fractures who received early transfusions (≥4 units of packed red blood cells in 4 hours) and underwent intervention for pelvic hemorrhage control were identified. Use and order of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PP), pelvic angioembolization (AE), and resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in zone 3 were examined and compared against the primary outcome of mortality. The associations between intervention patterns and mortality, complications, and 24-hour transfusions were further examined by backward stepwise regression analyses. Data analyses were performed in September 2021. Primary outcomes were rates of 24-hour, emergency department, and in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were major in-hospital complications. A total of 1396 patients were identified. Mean (SD) age was 47 (19) years, 975 (70%) were male, and the mean (SD) lowest systolic blood pressure was 71 (25) mm Hg. The median (IQR) Injury Severity Score was 24 (14-34), with a 24-hour mortality of 217 patients (15.5%), ED mortality of 10 patients (0.7%), in-hospital mortality of 501 patients (36%), and complication rate of 574 patients (41%). Pelvic AE was the most used intervention (774 [55%]), followed by preperitoneal PP (659 [47%]) and REBOA zone 3 (126 [9%]). Among the cohort, 1236 patients (89%) had 1 intervention, 157 (11%) had 2 interventions, and 3 (0.2%) had 3 interventions. On regression analyses, only pelvic AE was associated with a mortality reduction (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.82; P < .001). Preperitoneal PP was associated with increased odds of complications (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.80; P = .01). Increasing number of interventions was associated with increased 24-hour transfusions (β = +5.4; 95% CI, +3.5 to +7.5; P < .001) and mortality (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.05 to 2.37; P = .03), but not with complications. This study found that among patients with pelvic fracture who received early transfusions and at least 1 invasive pelvic hemorrhage control intervention, more than 1 in 3 died, despite the availability of advanced hemorrhage control interventions. Only pelvic AE was associated with a reduction in mortality.

Angioembolization in Severe Pelvic Trauma is Associated with Venous Thromboembolism

IntroductionManagement of hemorrhage from pelvic fractures is complex and requires multidisciplinary attention. Pelvic angioembolization (AE) has become a key intervention to aid in obtaining definitive hemorrhage control. We hypothesized that pelvic AE would be associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). MethodsAll adults (age >16) with a severe pelvic fracture (Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥ 4) secondary to a blunt traumatic mechanism in the 2017-2019 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database were included. Patients who did not receive VTE prophylaxis during their admission were excluded. Patients who underwent pelvic AE during the first 24 h of admission were compared to those who did not using propensity score matching. Matching was performed based on patient demographics, admission physiology, comorbidities, injury severity, associated injuries, other hemorrhage control procedures, and VTE prophylaxis type, and time to initiation of VTE prophylaxis. The rates of VTE (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism) were compared between the matched groups. ResultsOf 72,985 patients with a severe blunt pelvic fracture, 1887 (2.6%) underwent pelvic AE during the first 24 h of admission versus 71,098 (97.4%) who did not. Pelvic AE patients had a higher median Injury Severity Score and more often required other hemorrhage control procedures, with laparotomy being most common (24.7%). The median time to initiation of VTE prophylaxis in pelvic AE versus no pelvic AE patients was 60.1 h (interquartile range = 36.6-98.6) versus 27.7 h (interquartile range = 13.9-52.4), respectively. After propensity score matching, pelvic AE patients were more likely to develop VTE compared to no pelvic AE patients (11.8% versus 9.5%, P = 0.03). ConclusionsPelvic AE for control of hemorrhage from severe pelvic fractures is associated with an increased risk of in-hospital VTE. Patients who undergo pelvic AE are especially high risk for VTE and should be started as early as safely possible on VTE prophylaxis.

Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta is Associatedwith Increased Risk of Extremity Compartment Syndrome.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has been used as a temporizing procedure to control intra-abdominal or pelvic bleeding. Theoretically, occlusion of the aorta and the resulting ischemia-reperfusion of the lower extremities may increase the risk of extremity compartment syndrome (CS). To date, no study has addressed systematically the incidence and risk factors of CS following REBOA intervention. The purpose of this study was to address this knowledge gap. Adult trauma patients from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS-TQIP) database (2016-2019) were included. Patients who received REBOA within 4h of admission were compared to patients without REBOA after propensity score matching for demographics, vital signs on admission, comorbidities, injury severity of different body regions, pelvic and lower extremity fractures, vascular trauma to the lower extremities, fixation for fractures, angioembolization (AE) for pelvis, preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP), laparotomy, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. The primary outcomes were rates of lower extremity CS and fasciotomy and acute kidney injury (AKI). Secondary outcomes included mortality. There were 534 patients who received REBOA matched with 1043 patients without REBOA. Overall, patients in the REBOA group had significantly higher rates of CS than no REBOA patients [5.4% vs 1.1%, p < 0.001, OR: 5.39]. The risk of CS remained significantly higher in the subgroups of patients with or without pelvic or lower extremity fractures, as well as in the subgroup of patients with associated extremity vascular injury [11.2% vs 1.5%, p < 0.001, OR: 8.12].The fasciotomy and AKI rates were significantly higher in the REBOA group (5.8% vs 1.2%, p < 0.001 and 12.9% vs 7.4%, p< 0.001 respectively). REBOA use is associated with a higher risk of lower extremity CS, fasciotomy and AKI, especially in patients with associated lower extremity vascular injuries. These complications should be taken into account when considering REBOA use, and close observation for this complication should always be part of the routine monitoring.

Preperitoneal Pelvic Packing for Hypotension: Should There Be a Real Concern for Increased Risk of Venous Thromboembolism?: Commentary on an article by Joseph T. Patterson, MD, et al.: "Preperitoneal Pelvic Packing for Hypotension Has a Greater Risk of Venous Thromboembolism Than Angioembolization. Management of Refractory Hypotension in Closed Pelvic Ring Injury".

Commentary Patterson et al. investigated whether there is a difference in the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with hypotension and pelvic fractures who were managed either with preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) or angioembolization (AE). They used the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database. The matching of patients was possible using a propensity score approach. The primary outcome was the risk of VTE after matching on the propensity score for treatment, whereas the secondary outcomes included inpatient development of deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or respiratory failure, mortality, unplanned reoperation, sepsis, surgical site infection, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay. Patterson et al. report that PPP was associated with 9.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5% to 16.1%) greater absolute risk of VTE (relative risk [RR], 1.5 [95% CI, 1.2 to 1.9]; p = 0.003), 6.5% (95% CI, 1.2% to 11.9%) greater absolute risk of deep vein thrombosis (RR, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.1 to 1.8]; p = 0.04), and 4.9% (95% CI, 0.6% to 9.2%) greater absolute risk of respiratory failure (RR, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.1 to 9.8]; p = 0.03) compared with AE. Interestingly, the incidences of pulmonary embolism and mortality were nearly significant but they were not significantly different by treatment when analyzed separately. The authors conclude that the VTE risk among patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures was 16% for patients receiving PPP and 6% for patients receiving AE, and this 10% difference in the risk of clinically relevant VTE was attributed to PPP treatment. Patterson et al. cited authors who recommended that screening duplex ultrasounds should be conducted in patients receiving PPP. Although this study raises concerns in relation to the safety of PPP from the VTE point of view, the design and the results must be analyzed judiciously, as it would be unreasonable to develop the view that AE should be given preferential use or even that PPP should not be used, when it has been established for years as an appropriate, lifesaving intervention, especially in situations in which AE may not be readily available. First, of the 29,403 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 366 patients (1.2%) (183 in each group) were suitable for comparison after propensity score matching. That implies that 98.8% of patients were excluded from the analysis. Despite the effort of the authors to match the 2 groups utilizing an optimized propensity score, one remains skeptical whether the 2 groups are indeed comparable, as hypotension was defined as systolic blood pressure of <90 mm Hg at admission before intervention. However, hypotension is a dynamic parameter, and one would have expected patients who then underwent angiography to have achieved hemodynamic restoration (at least a transient response) prior to undergoing the intervention. In contrast, PPP would have been utilized in patients presenting in an extremis (near-death) physiological state, in whom the timing of the intervention is critical, and PPP would have been used as a lifesaving procedure. Therefore, the final suggestion made by the authors to perhaps consider the preferential use of AE, if available, is erroneous. Second, the analysis was based on a small number of VTE events, only 40 in total. Third, the authors themselves highlighted other limitations, including the retrospective nature of the study, the risk of the existence of inconsistent and/or inaccurately coded variables in the database, VTE events occurring after discharge not being captured, the timing of the presentation of VTE possibly being dissimilar between the 2 treatment modalities (PPP and AE), the pelvic fracture type of the injury not being available, and the exact timing of the occurrence of the VTE diagnosis not being able to be determined. Fourth, there was no reference to the incidence of complications that may occur after AE, such as gluteal muscle necrosis, infections, impotence, bladder necrosis, nerve damage, chronic buttock pain, and colonic, ileal, and ureteral infarction, among others1. Taking all of the above into consideration, one may argue that the message of this study must be interpreted with great caution. The 2 procedures should not be considered as antagonists but rather complementary. It should not be forgotten that PPP can address both venous and arterial bleeding, whereas AE can address only arterial bleeding. As previously highlighted according to the PRISM (“Prompt-Individualised-Safe Management”) algorithm of care2, treatment should be individualized on the basis of the availability of local resources, the ongoing evaluation of the hemodynamic condition of the patient, and the expertise of the local surgical team. A prospective randomized study is needed to provide further evidence regarding the controversial finding of this study.

Preperitoneal Pelvic Packing for Hypotension Has a Greater Risk of Venous Thromboembolism Than Angioembolization: Management of Refractory Hypotension in Closed Pelvic Ring Injury.

Patients with traumatic pelvic ring injury may present with hypotension secondary to hemorrhage. Preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) and angioembolization (AE) are alternative interventions for management of hypotension associated with pelvic ring injury refractory to resuscitation and circumferential compression. We hypothesized that PPP may be independently associated with increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) compared with AE in patients with hypotension and pelvic ring injury. Adult patients with pelvic ring injury and hypotension managed with PPP or AE were retrospectively identified in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database from 2015 to 2019. Patients were matched on a propensity score for receiving PPP based on patient, injury, and treatment factors. The primary outcome was the risk of VTE after matching on the propensity score for treatment. The secondary outcomes included inpatient clinically important deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, respiratory failure, mortality, unplanned reoperation, sepsis, surgical site infection, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. In this study, 502 patients treated with PPP and 2,439 patients treated with AE met inclusion criteria. After propensity score matching on age, smoking status, Injury Severity Score, Tile B or C pelvic ring injury, bilateral femoral fracture, serious head injury, units of plasma and platelets given within 4 hours of admission, laparotomy, and level-I trauma center facility designation, 183 patients treated with PPP and 183 patients treated with AE remained. PPP, compared with AE, was associated with a 9.8% greater absolute risk of VTE, 6.5% greater risk of clinically important deep vein thrombosis, and 4.9% greater risk of respiratory failure after propensity score matching. PPP for the management of hypotension associated with pelvic ring injury is associated with higher rates of inpatient VTE events and sequelae compared with AE. Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Trauma-Angio score as a predictor of urgent angioembolization for blunt trauma: development and validation using independent cohorts.

This research aimed to establish a scoring system for selecting candidates for urgent angioembolization (AE). Patients with blunt trauma were retrospectively identified in a nationwide trauma registry. Patients aged ≥ 15years with a systolic blood pressure of ≥90mmHg were included. These individuals were then categorized into development and validation cohorts based on the date of admission. Next, an eight-point scaled system was developed using odds ratios obtained from the multivariate analysis of patients' clinical factors on their arrival at the hospital, with the implementation of urgent AE as a dependent variable. The development cohort and validation cohort included 158,192 and 116,941 patients, respectively, and 3296 (2.1%) patients in the development cohort and 2,550 (2.2%) patients in the validation cohort underwent urgent AE. The frequency of transfusion within 24h after arrival and the Injury Severity Score were similar between the two cohorts (16,867 [10.7%] vs. 11,222 [9.6%] and 10 [9-18] vs. 10 [9-17], respectively). The number of patients who were discharged and hospital-free days were comparable between the two cohorts (139,436 [94.4%] vs. 106,107 [95.6%] and 72 [53-84] vs. 73 [57-84] days, respectively). The probabilities and the observed rates of urgent AE increased proportionally from 2% at a score of ≤ 3 to almost 15% at a score of ≥ 7. In terms of predictive factors, no significant interaction was noted. The Trauma-Angio scoring system can be used as a trigger to suggest the possibility of urgent AE. 20090087, 31st July 2009.

Blunt splenic injury in adults: Association between volumetric quantitative CT parameters and intervention.

Computed tomography volumetry of blunt splenic injury-related features predicts splenectomy and angioembolization in adults and identifies clinically important target features for computer vision and automation research. BACKGROUND Several ordinal grading systems are used in deciding whether to perform angioembolization (AE) or splenectomy following blunt splenic injury (BSI). The 2018 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Organ Injury Scale incorporates vascular lesions but not hemoperitoneum, which is considered in the Thompson classifier. Granular and verifiable quantitative measurements of these features may have a future role in facilitating objective decision making. PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to compare performance of computed tomography (CT) volumetry-based quantitative modeling to the 1994 and 2018 AAST Organ Injury Scale and Thompson classifier for the following endpoints: decision to perform splenectomy (SPY), and the composite of SPY or AE. MATERIALS AND METHODS Adult BSI patients (age ≥18 years) scanned with dual-phase CT prior to intervention at a single Level I trauma center from 2017 to 2019 were included in this retrospective study (n = 174). Scoring using 2018 AAST, 1994 AAST, and Thompson systems was performed retrospectively by two radiologists and arbitrated by a third. Endpoints included (1) SPY and (2) the composite of SPY or AE. Logistic regression models were developed from segmented active bleed, contained vascular lesion, splenic parenchymal disruption, and hemoperitoneum volumes. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for ordinal systems and volumetric models were compared. RESULTS Forty-seven BSI patients (27%) underwent SPY, and 87 patients (50%) underwent SPY or AE. Quantitative model AUCs (0.85—SPY, 0.82—composite) were not significantly different from 2018 AAST AUCs (0.81, 0.88, p = 0.66, 0.14) for both endpoints and were significantly improved over Thompson scoring (0.76, p = 0.02; 0.77, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION Quantitative CT volumetry can be used to model intervention for BSI with accuracy comparable to 2018 AAST scoring and significantly higher than Thompson scoring. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.