AbstractBackgroundCoagulopathy can delay or complicate surgical diseases that require emergent surgical treatment. Prothrombin complex concentrates (PCC) provide concentrated coagulation factors which may reverse coagulopathy more quickly than plasma (FFP) alone. We aimed to determine the time to operative intervention in coagulopathic emergency general surgery patients receiving either PCC or FFP. We hypothesize that PCC administration more rapidly normalizes coagulopathy and that the time to operation is diminished compared to FFP alone.MethodsSingle institution retrospective review was performed for coagulopathic EGS patients during 2/1/2008 to 8/1/2016. Patients were divided into three groups (1) PCC alone (2) FFP alone and (3) PCC and FFP. The primary outcome was the duration from clinical decision to operate to the time of incision. Summary and univariate analyses were performed.ResultsCoagulopathic EGS patients (n = 183) received the following blood products: PCC (n = 20, 11%), FFP alone (n = 119, 65%) and PCC/FFP (n = 44, 24%). The mean (± SD) patient age was 71 ± 13 years; 60% were male. The median (IQR) Charlson comorbidity index was similar in all three groups (PCC = 5(4–6), FFP = 5(4–7), PCC/FFP = 5(4–6), p = 0.33). The mean (± SD) dose of PCC administered was similar in the PCC/FFP group and the PCC alone group (2539 ± 1454 units vs. 3232 ± 1684, p =. 09). The mean (±SD) time to incision in the PCC alone group was significantly lower than the FFP alone group (6.0 ± 3.6 vs. 8.8 ± 5.0 h, p = 0.01). The mean time to incision in the PCC + FFP group was also significantly lower than the FFP alone group (7.1 ± 3.6 vs. 8.8 ± 5.0, p = 0.03). The incidence of thromboembolic complications was similar in all three groups.ConclusionsPCC, alone or in combination with FFP, reduced INR and time to surgery effectively and safely in coagulopathic EGS patients without an apparent increased risk of thromboembolic events, when compared to FFP use alone.Level of evidenceIV single institutional retrospective review.
External Validation of a Tube Thoracostomy Complication Classification System
AbstractBackgroundTube thoracostomy (TT) is a commonly performed procedure which is associated with significant complication rates. Currently, there is no validated taxonomy to classify and compare TT complications across different populations. This study aims to validate such TT complication taxonomy in a cohort of South African trauma patients.MethodsPost hoc analysis of a prospectively collected trauma database from Pietermaritzburg Metropolitan Trauma Service (PMTS) in South Africa was performed for the period January 2010 to December 2013. Baseline demographics, mechanism of injury and complications were collected and categorized according to published classification protocols. All patients requiring bedside TT were included in the study. Patients who necessitated operatively placed or image‐guided TT insertion were excluded. Summary and univariate analyses were performed.ResultsA total of 1010 patients underwent TT. The mean age was (±SD) of 26 ± 8 years. Unilateral TTs were inserted in n = 966 (96%) and bilateral in n = 44 (4%). Complications developed in 162 (16%) patients. Penetrating injury was associated with lower complication rate (11%) than blunt injury (26%), p = 0.0001. Higher complication rate was seen in TT placed by interns (17%) compared to TT placed by residents (7%), p = 0.0001. Complications were classified as: insertional (38%), positional (44%), removal (9%), infective/immunologic (9%), and instructional, educational or equipment related (0%).ConclusionsDespite being developed in the USA, this classification system is robust and was able to comprehensively assign and categorize all the complications of TT in this South African trauma cohort. A universal standardized definition and classification system permits equitable comparisons of complication rates. The use of this classification taxonomy may help develop strategies to improve TT placement techniques and reduce the complications associated with the procedure.Level of evidenceV.Study typeSingle Institution Retrospective review.