Category Archives: Complications

Colonic Pseudo-Obstruction In Trauma Patients – Part I

March 6, 2023 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

A funny thing happened eight years ago. During one of our morbidity and mortality conferences at Regions Hospital, we got the first hint of an emerging pattern. We noted occasional trauma patients who developed colonic pseudo-obstruction (CPO), also known as Ogilvie’s syndrome.

In reviewing our experience, it seemed to occur mostly in men who had sustained pelvic or thoracolumbar spine injuries. Surgical instrumentation for these injuries also appeared to be a common factor, as was middle-aged or older, obesity, and metabolic diseases like type II diabetes.

We continued to see the pattern and treated it in a highly variable way depending on the attending surgeon. Abdominal x-rays were obtained semi-randomly, and if the cecum was considered as the ill-defined term “large,” the patient was sent to the ICU for an injection of neostigmine or endoscopic evacuation. If a perforation occurred, patients often got very sick.

As always, variable practice patterns are fodder for developing a practice guideline. This is the first part of a two-part series on CPO in trauma patients. First, I’ll review a new article describing this condition’s incidence in orthopedic patients. Then, in my next post, I will share a practice guideline we developed for use at Regions Hospital.

The paper was a retrospective cohort study performed by the surgical group at Copenhagen University Hospital in Denmark. They focused on patients who underwent pelvic or acetabular procedures for traumatic injury over twelve years. One cohort consisted of patients who developed CPO; the other did not.

The definition of CPO was based on standard procedures that this surgical group already used, although the specifics were not fully explained. It was based on a physical examination of the abdomen, laboratory tests, and radiographic images. Patients with a colonic diameter >10 cm were treated with neostigmine infusion. Colonoscopic decompression was used if neostigmine did not work or was contraindicated.

Here are the factoids:

Of 1060 patients who underwent pelvic or acetabular procedures for trauma, 25 developed CPO (2.4%)
The incidence was only 1.6% for pelvic fractures and about 2.6% for acetabular fractures or combined fracture patterns
Risk factors identified included motorcycle crash, preperitoneal packing, concomitant skull fracture or intracranial hemorrhage, paraplegia or tetraplegia, internal fixation, congestive heart failure, diabetes, and sepsis or nosocomial infection
CPO development increased ICU length of stay by 9 days and added a month to the hospital stay
Mortality was higher in the CPO group (8% vs. 6%), but this was not statistically significant

Bottom line: This is the first paper I’m aware of that quantifies what I have already seen regarding Ogilvie’s syndrome in trauma. It should be an eye-opener for everyone who sees seriously injured orthopedic patients. The increased lengths of stay are enormous, which adds to the cost and the potential for even more complications.

Obviously, this is a problem that needs to be taken very seriously. Use of the ICU for neostigmine infusion or procedural decompression should be common. But recognition and initial management should be standardized, so all appropriate patients are treated for the condition.

In my next post, I’ll share the practice guideline we developed at Regions hospital. It is designed to identify the condition early and provide decompressive therapy without moving the patient to the ICU.

Reference: Ogilvie Syndrome in Patients With Traumatic Pelvic and/or
Acetabular Fractures: A Retrospective Cohort Study. J Orthop Trauma 37(3):122-129, 2023.

Abstracts, Complications, Head

Best Of EAST 2023 #12: VTE Prophylaxis In Severe TBI

January 19, 2023 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Time for another abstract on venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) prophylaxis, but this time in patients with severe head injury. VTE is a significant problem for trauma patients. Those with a potential source of bleeding from their injuries cause us to hesitate and consider the timing of chemical prophylaxis closely. Do we really want to cause more bleeding?

This is particularly problematic with intracranial hemorrhage, as the treatment is major brain surgery. Over recent years, the literature has been leaning toward earlier prophylaxis as soon as the intracranial blood has stopped evolving.

The EAST Multicenter Trials Group performed a seven-year retrospective review at 24 Level I and II trauma centers to assess the safety and efficacy of VTE chemoprophylaxis. They divided patients into three groups: no prophylaxis, early prophylaxis (within 24 hours), and late prophylaxis (after 24 hours).

The authors assessed two endpoints: VTE occurrence and expansion of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). They used several regression models to check their hypotheses.

Here are the factoids:

A total of 2,659 patients met the inclusion criteria. This averages out to 15 eligible patients per month per center. This is probably reasonable when combining a few high-volume centers with more lower volume centers.
Compared to early prophylaxis, patients who received late prophylaxis were twice as likely to develop VTE, although this was not statistically significant (p = 0.059)
Compared to early prophylaxis, patients who received no prophylaxis were a third less likely to develop VTE, although this, too, was not statistically significant (p = 0.39
About 25% of patients who received either early or late prophylaxis suffered an extension of their ICH, but only 17% of the no-prophylaxis group did
The regression model showed that the no prophylaxis group was 36% less likely to develop ICH extension compared to either early or late prophylaxis groups.

The workgroup concluded that the development of VTE was not dependent on the timing of the start of prophylaxis. Furthermore, patients who did not receive any prophylaxis had significantly decreased odds of ICH extension. The group recommended larger randomized studies to extend this work.

Bottom line: Shocker! This multicenter study suggests that the no prophylaxis and early prophylaxis groups had fewer VTE events than the late group, although these results were not statistically significant. This means that there wasn’t an advantage to giving the shot.

And the other major conclusion was that both early and late prophylaxis was associated with a significantly higher incidence of ICH extension.

Roll these together, and you will find that neither early nor late prophylaxis help prevent VTE, yet they are both associated with additional bleeding in and around the brain!

Heresy! I am trying to figure out what to make of these results. Perhaps the retrospective nature of the study and the wildcards this introduces influenced the results. It could be a study power problem, except the numbers were approaching significance that was unfavorable for prophylaxis.

I will be very interested to hear how the authors explain these findings. And yes, a well-powered randomized study would be great, but I don’t think many institutional review boards will be keen on a no-treatment group given our current fear of VTE. So don’t count on any real answers soon.

Reference: EARLY VTE PROPHYLAXIS IN SEVERE TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY: A PROPENSITY SCORE WEIGHTED EAST MULTICENTER TRIAL. EAST 2023 Podium paper #38.

Complications, Prehospital

Scoop And Run VS Stay And Play: Part 5

December 29, 2022 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

This is the last piece in my series on whether or not trauma patients should be initially managed with some limited interventions at the scene, vs just getting them into the ambulance and on their way to a trauma center. This article deals specifically with the needs of victims of penetrating trauma in big cities.

The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) published the results of a multicenter trial on the utility of prehospital procedures performed by EMTs and medics in this subset of patients. Most of the studies previously reviewed do not show an obvious advantage to dawdling at the scene.

The EAST study took an interesting approach. It limited patients to those in urban locations near trauma centers, which largely eliminated time from the equation. The authors could then attempt to identify any utility in performing procedures prior to trauma center arrival.

This was an observational trial of adults with penetrating injury to the torso or proximal extremity. A total of 25 trauma centers participated for a one-year period. Patients with penetrating injuries above the clavicles or in the distal extremities were excluded.

Here are the factoids:

Although 2,352 patients met inclusion criteria, a small number (68) were excluded because the method of transport was missing (!)
Type of transport was ALS (63%), private vehicle (17%), police (14%), and BLS (7%)
Nearly two-thirds (61%) received some type of prehospital procedure
The procedures performed included intubation (6% on scene, 2% in transport), IV access (49% on scene, 42% in transport), IO access (5% on scene, 3% in transport), fluid resuscitation (16% on scene, 32% in transport),application of a pressure dressing (23% on scene, 12% in transport), and tourniquet application (6% on scene, 2% in transport)
Patients who received prehospital interventions had significantly longer hospital length of stay (5.6 vs 4 days) and were more likely to develop ARDS, venous thromboembolisms, and urinary tract infections
In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the intervention group (10.3% vs 7.8%)
Mortality significantly increased with the number of interventions performed at the scene and enroute to the trauma center
Prehospital intubation was strongly correlated with mortality, and the following procedures were also associated with higher mortality: fluid resuscitation, cervical spine immobilization, and pleural decompression
Prehospital IV insertion was significantly associated with survival, but tourniquet placement was neutral
There was no mortality difference based on the type of transport provided

Bottom line: This is a fascinating paper that applies to a limited subset of patients. Specifically, it only studied patients in urban areas with a trauma center that was presumably very close. Prehospital endotracheal intubation proved to be the most deadly intervention. A few studies have confirmed that intubation further degrades end-organ perfusion further in animals with severe hemorrhagic shock.

The finding that prehospital fluids were associated with higher mortality, but that IV access was not, is puzzling at first. However, there are a number of papers clearly showing that resuscitation without definitive hemorrhage control, can be deadly. This study confirms this fact in humans and lends support to the concept of permissive hypotension in these patients.

Cervical spine immobilization proved to be a mortality risk. The reasons are not clear, but difficulties in placing an airway and increased intracranial pressure could be factors. The only clear indication would be for stabilization of the neck in patients with cervical cord injuries. However, in such cases the damage is done and collars are likely not of any benefit neurologically.

The biggest flaw in this study was that it did not record transport times. The authors assumed that times were short since the patients were injured in high density urban areas. There was also concern for selection bias, as more severely injured patients were more likely to undergo prehospital intervention.

The takeaway message is that in a setting with very short transport time to a trauma center, hemorrhage control trumps almost everything else. Obtaining IV access or applying a tourniquet may be beneficial, but should only occur once the patient is enroute to minimize time on scene. More advanced maneuvers such as fluid resuscitation, fluid resuscitation, collar placement, or needle decompression of the chest should be delayed for management by the trauma team.

These results cannot be generalized to patients with longer expected transport times, although we don’t have good research yet to back up this assertion. In those patients, it is probably best to adhere to the good old ABCs of ATLS. And of course, until this work is confirmed by more studies, do not go against any policies or procedures established by your prehospital agency!

Reference: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial examining prehospital procedures in penetrating trauma patients. J Trauma 91(1):130-140, 2021.

Complications

TXA Hesitancy: Part II

December 9, 2022 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

In my last post, I reviewed a huge systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of tranexamic acid (TXA) by all medical disciplines using it. There were more than 125,000 cases included and showed the incidence of thrombotic complications in TXA vs non-TXA patients was exactly the same at about 2%.

Our orthopedic surgery colleagues have been using TXA to reduce bleeding in their cases for decades. There is nothing close to the degree of “TXA hesitancy” in orthopedic surgeons than I see in surgical practices across trauma centers. What do the orthopods know that we don’t?

Trauma orthopedic groups in Malta and the UK published a paper just this month in which they performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of TXA in hip fracture surgery. They focused on randomized, controlled trials published after 2010. A standard approach was used in the analysis, which looked specifically at the impact of IV TXA on transfusion requirements in surgery. Only adults were studied, and eligible studies compared TXA with a placebo, or TXA with no TXA.

Here are the factoids:

Out of 85 studies initially identified, only 13 met all criteria
Across these trials, a total of 1194 patients were enrolled
The need for blood transfusion was reduced by more than 50% when the transfusion threshold was Hgb 8g/dl, which was highly statistically significant
When a higher transfusion threshold was used (between 8-10 g/dl Hbg) the risk reduction was only 23% which was not significant
The incidence of thrombotic events was identical for TXA and no-TXA groups

Bottom line: This paper presents more high-quality evidence that the use of TXA in surgically induced injury (hip fracture repair) significantly reduces the need for transfusion in the group with the most blood loss.

However, as with any meta-analysis the results are only as good as the quality of the individual papers. There were differences in how the TXA was given. It was also not possible to separate out results from the various types of hip surgery performed. And obviously, these are not major, multi-trauma patients.

Most TXA hesitant surgeons are either concerned with the efficacy of TXA, or the potential risks. This paper shows that, overall, TXA is effect in these patients despite the mix of doses and timing of delivery. And it clearly shows that the risk for thrombotic complications was identical to that of not giving it.

We have a cheap, effective tool to reduce the need for blood transfusion (read “blood loss”) in trauma patients that has a totally neutral risk profile for thrombosis. We all need to ask ourselves, “why are we not using it?”

Reference: The Use of Tranexamic Acid in Hip Fracture Surgery — A
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis . J Orthop Trauma, 36(2):e442-3448, 2022.

Complications

TXA Hesitancy: Part I

December 6, 2022 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

I’ve visited several hundred trauma centers over the past 25 years, and recently I’ve begun to appreciate that there are two tribes when it comes to the use of tranexamic acid: the TXA believers and the TXA hesitant.

There have been a number of large studies that seem to suggest a benefit with respect to survival from major hemorrhage, particularly if given soon after injury (CRASH-2, MATTERs). This drug is dirt cheap and has been around a long time, so it has a clearly defined risk profile.

However, many of those hesitant to use it point to the possibility of thromboembolic events that have been sporadically reported. Several years ago, I did my own literature review and found that the number of thrombotic events from TXA was nearly identical to that of transfusing plasma.

JAMA Surgery published a large systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression last year that sought to examine the association between thromboembolic events (TE) in patients of any age and involving all medical disciplines, not just trauma.

The anesthesia group at the University Hospital Frankfurt in German did a systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, as well as MEDLINE, for randomized controlled trials involving TXA. They covered all published studies through December 2020.

The authors adhered to standard guidelines for conducting reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA). They specifically searched for outcomes involving TEs, such as venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction or ischemia, limb ischemia, mesenteric thrombosis, and hepatic artery thrombosis. They also tallied the overall mortality, bleeding mortality, and non-bleeding mortality.

Here are the factoids:

A total of 216 eligible trials were identified that included over 125,000 patients (!)
Total TEs in the TXA group were 1,020 (2.1%) vs 900 (2.0%) in the control group
Studies at lowest risk for selection bias showed similar results

Bottom line: The authors concluded that IV TXA, irrespective of the dose, does not increase the risk of thromboembolic events. Period.

In my next post I’ll describe an even more recent systematic review and meta-analysis in orthopedic patients. Our orthopedic colleagues have been using this drug successfully for hip surgery for decades. Let’s see what they think.

Reference: Association of Intravenous Tranexamic Acid With Thromboembolic Events and Mortality A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression. JAMA Surgery 156(6):3210884, 2021.

Home of the Trauma Professional's Blog