在需要输血的实体器官损伤患者中,止血程序与观察后生存率的提高有关。

IF 1.2 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock Pub Date : 2023-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-23 DOI:10.4103/jets.jets_146_22
Jessicah A Respicio, John Culhane
{"title":"在需要输血的实体器官损伤患者中,止血程序与观察后生存率的提高有关。","authors":"Jessicah A Respicio,&nbsp;John Culhane","doi":"10.4103/jets.jets_146_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Selective nonoperative management (NOM) is the standard of care for blunt solid organ injury (SOI). Hemodynamic instability is a contraindication for NOM, but it is unclear whether the need for blood transfusion should be a criterion for instability. This study looks at the outcome of blood-transfused SOI patients to determine whether NOM is safe for this group.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective cohort study using the National Trauma Data Bank years 2017 through 2019. We selected patients with blunt liver, spleen, and kidney injuries. Within this group, we compared the mortality for those managed with NOM versus the hemostatic procedures of laparotomy and angioembolization. Significance for univariate analysis is tested with Chi-square for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis is performed with Cox proportional hazards regression with time-dependent covariate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>108,718 (3.5%) patients for the years 2017 through 2019 had a SOI. 20,569 (18.9%) of these received at least one unit of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) within the first 4 h. Of the SOI patients who received blood, 8264 (40.2%) underwent laparotomy only, 2924 (14.2%) underwent embolization only, and 1119 (5.4%) underwent both procedures. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of death for transfused SOI patients who underwent laparotomy only, embolization only, and both procedures are 0.93 (<i>P</i> = not significant), 0.27 (<i>P</i> < 0.001), and 0.48 (<i>P</i> < 0.001), respectively. The ORs of death with laparotomy for patients receiving >1 through 4 units are 0.87, 0.78, 0.75, and 0.72, respectively (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.01 for all). For embolization, the ORs are 0.27, 0.30, 0.30, and 0.30, respectively (<i>P</i> < 0.001 for all).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Laparotomy is independently associated with survival for patients who receive >1 unit of PRBCs. Angioembolization is independently associated with survival for the entire cohort, including transfused patients. Given the protective association of laparotomy in the blood-transfused SOI group, need for blood transfusion should be considered a meaningful index of instability and a relative indication for laparotomy. The protective association with angioembolization supports current practices for angioembolization of high-risk patients in the transfused and nontransfused groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":15692,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10424735/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In Solid Organ Injury Patients Requiring Blood Transfusion, Hemostatic Procedures are Associated with Improved Survival Over Observation.\",\"authors\":\"Jessicah A Respicio,&nbsp;John Culhane\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jets.jets_146_22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Selective nonoperative management (NOM) is the standard of care for blunt solid organ injury (SOI). Hemodynamic instability is a contraindication for NOM, but it is unclear whether the need for blood transfusion should be a criterion for instability. This study looks at the outcome of blood-transfused SOI patients to determine whether NOM is safe for this group.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a retrospective cohort study using the National Trauma Data Bank years 2017 through 2019. We selected patients with blunt liver, spleen, and kidney injuries. Within this group, we compared the mortality for those managed with NOM versus the hemostatic procedures of laparotomy and angioembolization. Significance for univariate analysis is tested with Chi-square for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis is performed with Cox proportional hazards regression with time-dependent covariate.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>108,718 (3.5%) patients for the years 2017 through 2019 had a SOI. 20,569 (18.9%) of these received at least one unit of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) within the first 4 h. Of the SOI patients who received blood, 8264 (40.2%) underwent laparotomy only, 2924 (14.2%) underwent embolization only, and 1119 (5.4%) underwent both procedures. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of death for transfused SOI patients who underwent laparotomy only, embolization only, and both procedures are 0.93 (<i>P</i> = not significant), 0.27 (<i>P</i> < 0.001), and 0.48 (<i>P</i> < 0.001), respectively. The ORs of death with laparotomy for patients receiving >1 through 4 units are 0.87, 0.78, 0.75, and 0.72, respectively (<i>P</i> ≤ 0.01 for all). For embolization, the ORs are 0.27, 0.30, 0.30, and 0.30, respectively (<i>P</i> < 0.001 for all).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Laparotomy is independently associated with survival for patients who receive >1 unit of PRBCs. Angioembolization is independently associated with survival for the entire cohort, including transfused patients. Given the protective association of laparotomy in the blood-transfused SOI group, need for blood transfusion should be considered a meaningful index of instability and a relative indication for laparotomy. The protective association with angioembolization supports current practices for angioembolization of high-risk patients in the transfused and nontransfused groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10424735/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jets.jets_146_22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jets.jets_146_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

引言:选择性非手术治疗(NOM)是治疗钝性实体器官损伤(SOI)的标准。血液动力学不稳定是NOM的禁忌症,但尚不清楚是否需要输血作为不稳定的标准。这项研究观察了输血SOI患者的结果,以确定NOM对这一群体是否安全。方法:这是一项使用2017年至2019年国家创伤数据库的回顾性队列研究。我们选择了肝、脾和肾钝性损伤的患者。在这一组中,我们比较了NOM与剖腹手术和血管栓塞止血程序的死亡率。单变量分析的显著性用分类变量的卡方检验。多变量分析采用含时协变量的Cox比例风险回归。结果:2017年至2019年,108718名(3.5%)患者患有SOI。其中20569人(18.9%)在最初4小时内接受了至少一个单位的填充红细胞(PRBCs)。在接受血液治疗的SOI患者中,8264人(40.2%)仅接受了剖腹手术,2924人(14.2%)仅接受栓塞治疗,1119人(5.4%)同时接受了两种手术。仅接受剖腹手术、仅接受栓塞和同时接受两种手术的输注SOI患者的调整后死亡优势比(OR)分别为0.93(P=不显著)、0.27(P<0.001)和0.48(P<001)。接受>1至4个单位的患者剖腹手术死亡的OR分别为0.87、0.78、0.75和0.72(所有患者的P≤0.01)。对于栓塞,ORs分别为0.27、0.30、0.30和0.30(P均<0.001)。结论:对于接受>1单位PRBCs的患者,剖腹产术与生存率独立相关。血管栓塞与整个队列(包括输血患者)的生存率独立相关。考虑到输血SOI组剖腹手术的保护性关联,输血需求应被视为一个有意义的不稳定性指标和剖腹手术的相对指征。与血管栓塞的保护性关联支持目前对输血组和非输血组高危患者进行血管栓塞的实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
In Solid Organ Injury Patients Requiring Blood Transfusion, Hemostatic Procedures are Associated with Improved Survival Over Observation.

Introduction: Selective nonoperative management (NOM) is the standard of care for blunt solid organ injury (SOI). Hemodynamic instability is a contraindication for NOM, but it is unclear whether the need for blood transfusion should be a criterion for instability. This study looks at the outcome of blood-transfused SOI patients to determine whether NOM is safe for this group.

Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study using the National Trauma Data Bank years 2017 through 2019. We selected patients with blunt liver, spleen, and kidney injuries. Within this group, we compared the mortality for those managed with NOM versus the hemostatic procedures of laparotomy and angioembolization. Significance for univariate analysis is tested with Chi-square for categorical variables. Multivariate analysis is performed with Cox proportional hazards regression with time-dependent covariate.

Results: 108,718 (3.5%) patients for the years 2017 through 2019 had a SOI. 20,569 (18.9%) of these received at least one unit of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) within the first 4 h. Of the SOI patients who received blood, 8264 (40.2%) underwent laparotomy only, 2924 (14.2%) underwent embolization only, and 1119 (5.4%) underwent both procedures. The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of death for transfused SOI patients who underwent laparotomy only, embolization only, and both procedures are 0.93 (P = not significant), 0.27 (P < 0.001), and 0.48 (P < 0.001), respectively. The ORs of death with laparotomy for patients receiving >1 through 4 units are 0.87, 0.78, 0.75, and 0.72, respectively (P ≤ 0.01 for all). For embolization, the ORs are 0.27, 0.30, 0.30, and 0.30, respectively (P < 0.001 for all).

Conclusion: Laparotomy is independently associated with survival for patients who receive >1 unit of PRBCs. Angioembolization is independently associated with survival for the entire cohort, including transfused patients. Given the protective association of laparotomy in the blood-transfused SOI group, need for blood transfusion should be considered a meaningful index of instability and a relative indication for laparotomy. The protective association with angioembolization supports current practices for angioembolization of high-risk patients in the transfused and nontransfused groups.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
52
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊最新文献
A Case of Spastic Quadriplegia Remaining after Multiple Traumatic Injuries Complicated by Sepsis and Reversible Posterior Leukoencephalopathy Syndrome, as well as Delayed Multifocal Microbleeds. Acute Myocardial Infarction with Refractory Cardiogenic Shock after High-Voltage Electrocution: An Intriguing Case. Air Everywhere without Bowel Injury. Bed-up-head-elevated Position versus Supine Sniffing Position in Patients Undergoing Rapid Sequence Intubation Using Direct Laryngoscopy in the Emergency Department - A Randomized Controlled Trial. Comparative Analysis of Machine Learning Models for Prediction of Acute Liver Injury in Sepsis Patients.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1