Wise, Kevin B.

AbstractBackgroundComprehensive analysis of trauma care between high‐, middle‐, and low‐income countries (HIC/MIC/LIC) is needed to improve global health. Comparison of HIC and MIC outcomes after damage control laparotomy (DCL) for patients is unknown. We evaluated DCL utilization among patients treated at high‐volume trauma centers in the USA and South Africa, an MIC, hypothesizing similar mortality outcomes despite differences in resources and setting.MethodsPost hoc analysis of prospectively collected trauma databases from participating centers was performed. Injury severity, physiologic, operative data and post‐operative outcomes were abstracted. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess differences between HIC/MIC for the primary outcome of mortality.ResultsThere were 967 HIC and 602 MIC patients who underwent laparotomy. DCL occurred in 144 MIC patients (25%) and 241 HIC (24%) patients. Most sustained (58%) penetrating trauma with higher rates in the MIC compared to the HIC (71 vs. 32%, p = 0.001). Between groups, no differences were found for admission physiology, coagulopathy, or markers of shock except for increased presence of hypotension among patients in the HIC. Crystalloid infusion volumes were greater among MIC patients, and MIC patients received fewer blood products than those in the HIC. Overall mortality was 30% with similar rates between groups (29 in HIC vs. 33% in MIC, p = 0.4). On regression, base excess and penetrating injury were independent predictors of mortality but not patient residential status.ConclusionUse and survival of DCL for patients with severe abdominal trauma was similar between trauma centers in HIC and MIC settings despite increased penetrating trauma and less transfusion in the MIC center. While the results overall suggest no gap in care for patients requiring DCL in this MIC, it highlights improvements that can be made in damage control resuscitation.

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.