Acquired Hemophilia A: A Case Report.

Hemophilia A, also known as factor VIII deficiency, is a rare disorder caused by an insufficient level of factor VIII, an essential clotting protein. Hemophilia A can be inherited or acquired. Inherited hemophilia A is caused by a mutation to the factor VIII gene on the X chromosome, which is commonly passed down from parents to children. However, in about one-third of cases, the cause is a spontaneous mutation in that gene. Acquired hemophilia A is due to an autoantibody to factor VIII, which is termed an inhibitor. This rare disorder can cause life-threatening bleeding complications. Management relies on a rapid and accurate diagnosis, control of bleeding episodes, and eradication of the inhibitor by immunosuppression therapy. Most treatment strategies are centered around anecdotal reports or small case series. This case report summarizes the successful treatment of a patient with acquired hemophilia A and major bleeding following a surgical procedure, with the use of desmopressin, recombinant factor VIIa, repeated doses of recombinant factor VIII, rituximab, and prednisone.

Prevalence and Overtesting of True Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia in a 591-Bed Tertiary Care, Teaching Hospital.

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia type II (HIT) is a rare but potentially fatal antibody-mediated reaction to all forms of heparin (unfractionated heparin, low-molecular weight heparin, heparin flushes, and heparin-coated catheters), which can lead to HIT with thrombosis. Two tests commonly used to screen for HIT include the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and serotonin release assay (SRA). This is a retrospective chart review study conducted from January 1, 2013, through December 31, 2014, to estimate the rate of true HIT in critical care patients at Winthrop-University Hospital, located in Mineola, New York. Patients are classified as positive for HIT if both ELISA and SRA immunoassays are positive. We reviewed 507 heparin immunoassays, excluding 64 who had an inappropriate ELISA test sent due to no administration of heparin, enoxaparin, or heparin lock flush at this or previous hospital stays at Winthrop. Of the 443 heparin immunoassays, ELISA results were positive for 66 patients (15.1%), and only 11 (2.5%) patients had true cases of HIT with a 95% confidence interval of 1.3% to 4.4%. The 4T score for those with true HIT (median: 5.0) was statistically higher compared to those without true HIT (median: 2.0; P < .001). Despite guidelines in place, overtesting for HIT is still a prevalent issue.

Comparación entre tromboelastografía y test de coagulación convencionales: ¿deberíamos abandonar los test de coagulación convencional en el paciente politraumatizado? / Comparison between thromboelastography and conventional coagulation test: Should we abandon conventional coagulation tests in polytrauma patients?

INTRODUCCIÓN: TEG mide in vivo la potencia viscoelástica de la coagulación en sangre total; comparado con los TCC, estos no reflejan la influencia plaquetaria. Nuestro objetivo fue comparar TEG vs. TCC en pacientes politraumáticos estratificados por mecanismo lesional (ML) y estado previo de coagulación. MÉTODOS: Estudio retrospectivo y observacional de 230 pacientes politraumáticos, en un Hospital Universitario Nivel 1 de Trauma, realizándose TEG y TCC a su llegada. Los pacientes se dividieron según ML: multitraumatismo (MT), traumatismo craneoencefálico (TCE) aislado y MT + TCE. Se analizó la correlación entre TEG-TCC en todos los grupos y un análisis de subgrupo de los pacientes anticoagulados, utilizándose ANOVA, Spearman y regresión lineal según correspondía. Se definió la significación estadística como p < 0,05. RESULTADOS: Coagulación según TEG: normal (28,7%), hipercoagulación (68,3%) e hipocoagulación (3%). No hubo diferencias en parámetros de coagulación por TEG entre grupos. La coagulación no estaba afectada por edad, ISS o presencia de shock. Los TCC estaban alterados en 63,6% pacientes con TEG normal. La TEG fue normal o hipercoagulación en 21/23 pacientes anticoagulados con warfarina e INR elevado, y en 10/11 pacientes anticoagulados con NAO. TEG fue normal o hipercoagulación en 21/23 pacientes anticoagulados con warfarina, estratificado por INR (2 pacientes), y 2 pacientes presentaron TEG con hipocoagulación. La mortalidad fue del 5,2% (58,3% TCE severo). CONCLUSIONES: TEG es más útil que los TCC en pacientes politraumáticos, incluyendo a pacientes anticoagulados. El TCE podría aumentar la incidencia de hipercoagulabilidad en traumatismos. Los TCC no son útiles des del punto de vista terapéutico

INTRODUCTION: TEG provides an in-vivo assessment of viscoelastic clot strength in whole blood compared with CCT, which may not reflect the influence of platelets. The aim of this study was to compare TEG vs. CCT in trauma patients stratified by mechanism of injury (MOI) and pre-existing coagulation status. METHODS: A retrospective, observational study of 230 polytrauma patients admitted to a University Hospital Level 1 Trauma Center, with TEG and CCT on admission stratified by MOI: multiple trauma (MT), isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI) or MT+TBI. Statistical analysis included correlation between TEG and CCT in all groups and a subgroup analysis of anticoagulated patients. Data were analyzed with ANOVA, Spearman and lineal regression when appropriate. Statistical significance was accepted at P < 0.05. RESULTS: TEG was normal in 28.7%, hypercoagulable in 68.3%, hypocoagulable in 7%. There was no difference in TEG status among the groups. The coagulation status was not affected by age, ISS or shock. The CCT were abnormal in 63.6% of patients with normal TEG. Normal or hypercoagulable-TEG was found in 21/23 patients on Coumadin who had elevated INR and in 10/11 patients on NOAC. An analysis of the 23 patients on Coumadin stratified by INR showed a normal or hypercoagulable-TEG in 21/23 patients. Only 2 patients had a hypocoagulable-TEG. Mortality was 5.2% (58.3% severe TBI). CONCLUSIONS: TEG is more useful than CCT in polytrauma patients, including patients on anticoagulants. TBI could increase the incidence of hypercoagulability in trauma. CCT are not useful from the standpoint of treatment

Comparison between thromboelastography and conventional coagulation test: Should we abandon conventional coagulation tests in polytrauma patients? / Comparación entre tromboelastografía y test de coagulación convencionales: ¿deberíamos abandonar los test de coagulación convencional en el paciente politraumatizado?

INTRODUCTION: TEG provides an in-vivo assessment of viscoelastic clot strength in whole blood compared with CCT, which may not reflect the influence of platelets. The aim of this study was to compare TEG vs. CCT in trauma patients stratified by mechanism of injury (MOI) and pre-existing coagulation status. METHODS: A retrospective, observational study of 230 polytrauma patients admitted to a University Hospital Level 1 Trauma Center, with TEG and CCT on admission stratified by MOI: multiple trauma (MT), isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI) or MT+TBI. Statistical analysis included correlation between TEG and CCT in all groups and a subgroup analysis of anticoagulated patients. Data were analyzed with ANOVA, Spearman and lineal regression when appropriate. Statistical significance was accepted at P<0.05. RESULTS: TEG was normal in 28.7%, hypercoagulable in 68.3%, hypocoagulable in 7%. There was no difference in TEG status among the groups. The coagulation status was not affected by age, ISS or shock. The CCT were abnormal in 63.6% of patients with normal TEG. Normal or hypercoagulable-TEG was found in 21/23 patients on Coumadin who had elevated INR and in 10/11 patients on NOAC. An analysis of the 23 patients on Coumadin stratified by INR showed a normal or hypercoagulable-TEG in 21/23 patients. Only 2 patients had a hypocoagulable-TEG. Mortality was 5.2% (58.3% severe TBI). CONCLUSIONS: TEG is more useful than CCT in polytrauma patients, including patients on anticoagulants. TBI could increase the incidence of hypercoagulability in trauma. CCT are not useful from the standpoint of treatment.

Evolución en el tratamiento conservador del traumatismo esplénico contuso / Evolution of the treatment of splenic injuries: from surgery to non-operative management

El bazo es uno de los órganos más frecuentemente dañado en el traumatismo abdominal cerrado. El manejo de la lesión esplénica ha evolucionado en los últimos años, con cada vez mayor tendencia al manejo conservador. El conocimiento de su función inmunológica ha sido el motor inicial para impulsar el desarrollo de técnicas de preservación del bazo. El mayor acceso a pruebas de imagen de alta resolución, así como a técnicas terapéuticas poco agresivas, como la angioembolización, ha permitido una mayor tasa de éxito en el manejo no quirúrgico de estos casos, con una disminución en la morbimortalidad global asociada a estos pacientes. El objetivo de esta revisión es dar a conocer el manejo actual de traumatismo esplénico basado en la bibliografía internacional de los últimos 30 años -se han identificado 63.205 pacientes- y, así, ofrecer al cirujano mejores herramientas a la hora de decidir el tratamiento recomendable en cada caso (AU)

The spleen is one of the most frequently injured organs in blunt abdominal trauma. In the past decades, the treatment of patients with blunt splenic injury has shifted from operative to non-operative management. The knowledge of physiology and immunology of the spleen have been the main reasons to develop techniques for splenic salvage. The advances in high-resolution imaging techniques, as well as less invasive procedures, including angiography and angioembolization, have allowed a higher rate of success in the non-operative management. Non-operative management has showed a decrease in overall mortality and morbidity. The aim of this article is to analyze the current management of splenic injury based on a literature review of the last 30 years; from we have identified 63,205 patients. This would enable the surgeons to provide the best care possible in every case (AU)

Evolution of the treatment of splenic injuries: from surgery to non-operative management. / Evolución en el tratamiento conservador del traumatismo esplénico contuso.

The spleen is one of the most frequently injured organs in blunt abdominal trauma. In the past decades, the treatment of patients with blunt splenic injury has shifted from operative to non-operative management. The knowledge of physiology and immunology of the spleen have been the main reasons to develop techniques for splenic salvage. The advances in high-resolution imaging techniques, as well as less invasive procedures, including angiography and angioembolization, have allowed a higher rate of success in the non-operative management. Non-operative management has showed a decrease in overall mortality and morbidity. The aim of this article is to analyze the current management of splenic injury based on a literature review of the last 30 years, from we have identified 63,205 patients. This would enable the surgeons to provide the best care possible in every case.

Management of esophageal injuries secondary to trauma.

Traumatic esophageal injuries occur less than 10% of the time in the setting of blunt or penetrating trauma. The purpose of this literature review is to provide an update on the most recent changes involving the diagnosis and treatment of esophageal injuries. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, to identify articles written in English language with the terms "non- iatrogenic", "esophageal", "trauma", "diagnosis", "management", and "prognosis". Case reports and articles involving non-traumatic esophageal perforations were excluded. Fifty pertinent articles in English language from 1947 to 2015 were selected for review. Based on the review of all articles, we designed a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm to facilitate the diagnosis and management of the traumatic esophageal injury.

Evaluation of Hydrocortisone Continuous Infusion Versus Intermittent Boluses in Resolution of Septic Shock.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of continuous infusion of hydrocortisone versus intermittent boluses in the resolution of septic shock. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to investigate the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone continuous infusion (200 mg per day) versus intermittent boluses (50 mg every six hours) in septic shock patients who did not respond to fluid resuscitation and vasopressors. The primary outcome was time to resolution of shock, defined by time from the initiation of hydrocortisone to time of vasopressor withdrawal when mean arterial pressure was greater than 65 mm Hg. Hospital length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, 28-day all-cause in-hospital mortality, and hyperglycemia were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 51 patients in the study, 33 received intermittent boluses of hydrocortisone. The median time to resolution of shock in the continuous group was three days, compared with a mean time of two days in the bolus group (P = 0.41). Mean hospital length of stay was 18.7 ± 19.4 days in the continuous group versus 18.6 ± 17.4 days in the bolus group (P = 0.77). Mean ICU length of stay was 10.4 ± 12.5 days in the continuous group versus 11.1 ± 9.2 days in the bolus group (P = 0.31). Thirteen patients (72%) in the continuous group died within 28 days, compared with 20 (60%) in the bolus group (P = 0.76). Five patients (28%) had hyperglycemic episodes after being given hydrocortisone in the continuous infusion group, compared with 20 patients (60%) in the bolus group (P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in time to resolution of septic shock between continuous infusion (200 mg per day) and intermittent boluses (50 mg every six hours) of hydrocortisone. There were also no statistically significant differences in overall hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, and 28-day all-cause in-hospital mortality. However, there was a significant difference in the incidence of hyperglycemia between the two groups, with patients in the bolus group experiencing more hyperglycemia than those in the continuous infusion group.

Humerus fractures at a regional trauma center: an epidemiologic study.

The purpose of this study was to outline the epidemiologic criteria of humerus fractures after traumatic injuries. All patients admitted to the trauma service at the authors' institution between 2005 and 2011 were entered into a prospective database. The authors obtained data on age, sex, injury mechanism, presence and location of humerus fracture, associated injuries, mortality, Injury Severity Score, treatment, and length of stay. Patients were matched to a group of patients with pelvic fractures with similar Injury Severity Scores to investigate whether significant differences existed between the 2 groups. Of the 11,007 trauma patients admitted, 209 (1.9%) had a humerus fracture. Associated fractures occurred in 154 (73.7%) patients. The mortality rate for all trauma patients during this period was 4.5%; it was 12% among those with humerus fractures and 21% among those with humeral shaft injuries. Several significant differences existed between the humerus fracture group and the pelvic fracture group. Visceral injuries were more common in the pelvic group, whereas associated fractures and head injuries were more common in the humerus fractures group. Age, sex, and length of stay were also significantly different between the 2 groups, but mortality was not significantly different. Humerus fractures in polytrauma patients are often associated with multiple injuries and a high mortality rate, especially for patients with humeral shaft fractures. A comprehensive evaluation of the patient is necessary.