血管栓塞治疗脾脏损伤:有用吗?两个一级创伤中心对 III-V 级脾损伤的回顾性评估

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open Pub Date : 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1136/tsaco-2023-001240
M. U. Ahmad, David Lee, L. Tennakoon, Tiffany Erin Chao, David Spain, K. Staudenmayer
{"title":"血管栓塞治疗脾脏损伤:有用吗?两个一级创伤中心对 III-V 级脾损伤的回顾性评估","authors":"M. U. Ahmad, David Lee, L. Tennakoon, Tiffany Erin Chao, David Spain, K. Staudenmayer","doi":"10.1136/tsaco-2023-001240","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Splenic angioembolization (SAE) has increased in utilization for blunt splenic injuries. We hypothesized lower SAE usage would not correlate with higher rates of additional intervention or mortality when choosing initial non-operative management (NOM) or surgery. Study design Trauma registries from two level I trauma centers from 2010 to 2020 were used to identify patients aged >18 years with grade III–V blunt splenic injuries. Results were compared with the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) for 2018 for level I and II centers. Additional intervention or failure was defined as any subsequent SAE or surgery. Mortality was defined as death during admission. Results There were 266 vs 5943 patients who met inclusion/exclusion criteria at Stanford/Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC) versus the NTDB. Initial intervention differed significantly between cohorts with the use of SAE (6% vs 17%, p=0.000). Failure differed significantly between cohorts (1.5% vs 6.5%, p=0.005). On multivariate analysis, failure in NOM was significantly associated with NTDB cohort status, age 65+ years, more than one comorbidity, mechanism of injury, grade V spleen injury, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) 25+. On multivariate analysis, failure in SAE was significantly associated with Shock Index >0.9 and 10+ units blood in 24 hours. On multivariate analysis, a higher risk of mortality was significantly associated with NTDB cohort status, age 65+ years, no private insurance, more than one comorbidity, mechanism of injury, ISS 25+, 10+ units blood in 24 hours, NOM, more than one hospital complications, anticoagulant use, other Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥3 abdominal injuries. Conclusions Compared with national data, our cohort had less SAE, lower rates of additional intervention, and had lower risk-adjusted mortality. Shock Index >0.9, grade V splenic injuries, and increased transfusion requirements in the first 24 hours may signal a need for surgical intervention rather than SAE or NOM and may reduce mortality in appropriately selected patients. Level of evidence Level II/III.","PeriodicalId":23307,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Angioembolization for splenic injuries: does it help? Retrospective evaluation of grade III–V splenic injuries at two level I trauma centers\",\"authors\":\"M. U. Ahmad, David Lee, L. Tennakoon, Tiffany Erin Chao, David Spain, K. Staudenmayer\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/tsaco-2023-001240\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background Splenic angioembolization (SAE) has increased in utilization for blunt splenic injuries. We hypothesized lower SAE usage would not correlate with higher rates of additional intervention or mortality when choosing initial non-operative management (NOM) or surgery. Study design Trauma registries from two level I trauma centers from 2010 to 2020 were used to identify patients aged >18 years with grade III–V blunt splenic injuries. Results were compared with the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) for 2018 for level I and II centers. Additional intervention or failure was defined as any subsequent SAE or surgery. Mortality was defined as death during admission. Results There were 266 vs 5943 patients who met inclusion/exclusion criteria at Stanford/Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC) versus the NTDB. Initial intervention differed significantly between cohorts with the use of SAE (6% vs 17%, p=0.000). Failure differed significantly between cohorts (1.5% vs 6.5%, p=0.005). On multivariate analysis, failure in NOM was significantly associated with NTDB cohort status, age 65+ years, more than one comorbidity, mechanism of injury, grade V spleen injury, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) 25+. On multivariate analysis, failure in SAE was significantly associated with Shock Index >0.9 and 10+ units blood in 24 hours. On multivariate analysis, a higher risk of mortality was significantly associated with NTDB cohort status, age 65+ years, no private insurance, more than one comorbidity, mechanism of injury, ISS 25+, 10+ units blood in 24 hours, NOM, more than one hospital complications, anticoagulant use, other Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥3 abdominal injuries. Conclusions Compared with national data, our cohort had less SAE, lower rates of additional intervention, and had lower risk-adjusted mortality. Shock Index >0.9, grade V splenic injuries, and increased transfusion requirements in the first 24 hours may signal a need for surgical intervention rather than SAE or NOM and may reduce mortality in appropriately selected patients. Level of evidence Level II/III.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2023-001240\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2023-001240","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景脾血管栓塞术(SAE)在钝性脾损伤中的使用率有所上升。我们假设,在选择初始非手术治疗(NOM)或手术时,较低的 SAE 使用率不会与较高的额外干预率或死亡率相关。研究设计 使用两个一级创伤中心 2010 年至 2020 年的创伤登记资料来识别年龄大于 18 岁的 III-V 级钝性脾损伤患者。研究结果与美国国家创伤数据库(NTDB)2018年I级和II级中心的数据进行了比较。额外干预或失败定义为任何后续SAE或手术。死亡率定义为入院期间死亡。结果 斯坦福大学/圣克拉拉谷医疗中心(SCVMC)与NTDB相比,符合纳入/排除标准的患者分别为266例和5943例。使用SAE进行初始干预的组群间差异显著(6% vs 17%,P=0.000)。各组间的失败率也有显著差异(1.5% vs 6.5%,P=0.005)。多变量分析显示,NOM失败与NTDB队列状态、65岁以上、一种以上合并症、损伤机制、脾脏损伤V级和损伤严重程度评分(ISS)25分以上显著相关。多变量分析显示,SAE 失败与休克指数大于 0.9 和 24 小时内血液量超过 10 单位有显著相关性。在多变量分析中,死亡风险较高与 NTDB 队列状况、65 岁以上、无私人保险、一种以上合并症、损伤机制、ISS 25 分以上、24 小时内 10 个单位以上血液、NOM、一种以上医院并发症、使用抗凝剂、其他简略损伤量表≥3 的腹部损伤明显相关。结论 与全国数据相比,我们的队列中发生的 SAE 较少,额外干预率较低,风险调整后死亡率较低。休克指数>0.9、V级脾脏损伤以及头24小时内输血需求增加可能预示着需要手术干预,而不是SAE或NOM,并可能降低经过适当选择的患者的死亡率。证据等级 II/III 级。
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
Angioembolization for splenic injuries: does it help? Retrospective evaluation of grade III–V splenic injuries at two level I trauma centers
Background Splenic angioembolization (SAE) has increased in utilization for blunt splenic injuries. We hypothesized lower SAE usage would not correlate with higher rates of additional intervention or mortality when choosing initial non-operative management (NOM) or surgery. Study design Trauma registries from two level I trauma centers from 2010 to 2020 were used to identify patients aged >18 years with grade III–V blunt splenic injuries. Results were compared with the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) for 2018 for level I and II centers. Additional intervention or failure was defined as any subsequent SAE or surgery. Mortality was defined as death during admission. Results There were 266 vs 5943 patients who met inclusion/exclusion criteria at Stanford/Santa Clara Valley Medical Center (SCVMC) versus the NTDB. Initial intervention differed significantly between cohorts with the use of SAE (6% vs 17%, p=0.000). Failure differed significantly between cohorts (1.5% vs 6.5%, p=0.005). On multivariate analysis, failure in NOM was significantly associated with NTDB cohort status, age 65+ years, more than one comorbidity, mechanism of injury, grade V spleen injury, and Injury Severity Score (ISS) 25+. On multivariate analysis, failure in SAE was significantly associated with Shock Index >0.9 and 10+ units blood in 24 hours. On multivariate analysis, a higher risk of mortality was significantly associated with NTDB cohort status, age 65+ years, no private insurance, more than one comorbidity, mechanism of injury, ISS 25+, 10+ units blood in 24 hours, NOM, more than one hospital complications, anticoagulant use, other Abbreviated Injury Scale ≥3 abdominal injuries. Conclusions Compared with national data, our cohort had less SAE, lower rates of additional intervention, and had lower risk-adjusted mortality. Shock Index >0.9, grade V splenic injuries, and increased transfusion requirements in the first 24 hours may signal a need for surgical intervention rather than SAE or NOM and may reduce mortality in appropriately selected patients. Level of evidence Level II/III.
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
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Early identification of respiratory decompensation among older adults with rib fractures: a sound solution for fragile ribs. Damage control surgery in a patient with cardiac arrest from necrotizing soft tissue infection. Do not fear the open abdomen. Bridging the gap: a robotic approach to the repair of a traumatic diaphragmatic intercostal hernia. Documentation and coding for trauma and surgical critical care: updates and tips.
×
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