J A Asensio1, P Petrone, L García-Núñez, B Kimbrell, E Kuncir. 1. Division of Trauma and Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery, University of Southern California Keck School of Medicine, LAC + USC Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, USA. jasensio@med.miami.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Complex hepatic injuries grades IV-V are highly lethal. The objective of this study is to assess the multidisciplinary approach for their management and to evaluate if survival could be improved with this approach. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective 54-month study of all patients sustaining hepatic injuries grades IV-V managed operatively at a Level I Trauma Center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: survival. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: univariate and stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients sustained penetrating (47/63%) and blunt (28/37%) injuries. Seven (9%) patients underwent emergency department thoracotomy with a mortality of 100%. Out of the 75 patients, 52 (69%) sustained grade IV, and 23 (31%) grade V. The estimated blood loss was 3,539+/-3,040 ml. The overall survival was 69%, adjusted survival excluding patients requiring emergency department thoracotomy was 76%. Survival stratified to injury grade: grade IV 42/52-81%, grade V 10/23-43%. Mortality grade IV versus V injuries (p < 0.002; RR 2.94; 95% CI 1.52-5.70). Risk factors for mortality: packed red blood cells transfused in operating room (p=0.024), estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), dysryhthmia (p < 0.0001), acidosis (p = 0.051), hypothermia (p = 0.04). The benefit of angiography and angioembolization indicated: 12% mortality (2/17) among those that received it versus a 36% mortality (21/58) among those that did not (p = 0.074; RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.08-1.25). Stepwise logistic regression identified as significant independent predictors of outcome: estimated blood loss (p= 0.0017; RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.08-1.41) and number of packed red blood cells transfused in the operating room (p = 0.0358; RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.01-1.34). CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary approach to the management of these severe grades of injuries appears to improve survival in these highly lethal injuries. A prospective multi-institutional study is needed to validate this approach.
BACKGROUND: Complex hepatic injuries grades IV-V are highly lethal. The objective of this study is to assess the multidisciplinary approach for their management and to evaluate if survival could be improved with this approach. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective 54-month study of all patients sustaining hepatic injuries grades IV-V managed operatively at a Level I Trauma Center. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: survival. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: univariate and stepwise logistic regression. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients sustained penetrating (47/63%) and blunt (28/37%) injuries. Seven (9%) patients underwent emergency department thoracotomy with a mortality of 100%. Out of the 75 patients, 52 (69%) sustained grade IV, and 23 (31%) grade V. The estimated blood loss was 3,539+/-3,040 ml. The overall survival was 69%, adjusted survival excluding patients requiring emergency department thoracotomy was 76%. Survival stratified to injury grade: grade IV 42/52-81%, grade V 10/23-43%. Mortality grade IV versus V injuries (p < 0.002; RR 2.94; 95% CI 1.52-5.70). Risk factors for mortality: packed red blood cells transfused in operating room (p=0.024), estimated blood loss (p < 0.001), dysryhthmia (p < 0.0001), acidosis (p = 0.051), hypothermia (p = 0.04). The benefit of angiography and angioembolization indicated: 12% mortality (2/17) among those that received it versus a 36% mortality (21/58) among those that did not (p = 0.074; RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.08-1.25). Stepwise logistic regression identified as significant independent predictors of outcome: estimated blood loss (p= 0.0017; RR 1.24; 95% CI 1.08-1.41) and number of packed red blood cells transfused in the operating room (p = 0.0358; RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.01-1.34). CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary approach to the management of these severe grades of injuries appears to improve survival in these highly lethal injuries. A prospective multi-institutional study is needed to validate this approach.