Phlebotomy resulting in controlled hypovolaemia to prevent blood loss in major hepatic resections (PRICE-1): a pilot randomized clinical trial for feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Major liver resection is associated with blood loss and transfusion. Observational data suggest that hypovolaemic phlebotomy can reduce these risks. This feasibility RCT compared hypovolaemic phlebotomy with the standard of care, to inform a future multicentre trial. METHODS: Patients undergoing major liver resections were enrolled between June 2016 and January 2018. Randomization was done during surgery and the surgeons were blinded to the group allocation. For hypovolaemic phlebotomy, 7-10 ml per kg whole blood was removed, without intravenous fluid replacement. Co-primary outcomes were feasibility and estimated blood loss (EBL). RESULTS: A total of 62 patients were randomized to hypovolaemic phlebotomy (31) or standard care (31), at a rate of 3·1 patients per month, thus meeting the co-primary feasibility endpoint. The median EBL difference was -111 ml (P = 0·456). Among patients at high risk of transfusion, the median EBL difference was -448 ml (P = 0·069). Secondary feasibility endpoints were met: enrolment, blinding and target phlebotomy (mean(s.d.) 7·6(1·9) ml per kg). Blinded surgeons perceived that parenchymal resection was easier with hypovolaemic phlebotomy than standard care (16 of 31 versus 10 of 31 respectively), and guessed that hypovolaemic phlebotomy was being used with an accuracy of 65 per cent (20 of 31). There was no significant difference in overall complications (10 of 31 versus 15 of 31 patients), major complications or transfusion. Among those at high risk, transfusion was required in two of 15 versus three of nine patients (P = 0·326). CONCLUSION: Endpoints were met successfully, but no difference in EBL was found in this feasibility study. A multicentre trial (PRICE-2) powered to identify a difference in perioperative blood transfusion is justified. Registration number: NCT02548910 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

ANTECEDENTES: La resección hepática mayor se asocia con pérdida de sangre y necesidad de transfusión. Datos observacionales sugieren que la flebotomía hipovolémica (hypovolaemic phlebotomy, HP) puede reducir estos riesgos. Este ensayo clínico aleatorizado (randomised clinical trial, RCT) de factibilidad comparó HP con el tratamiento estándar con el fin de proporcionar información para un futuro ensayo multicéntrico. MÉTODOS: Se reclutaron pacientes sometidos a resecciones hepáticas mayores entre junio 2016 y enero 2018. La aleatorización se realizó durante el intraoperatorio y los cirujanos eran ciegos al resultado de la asignación. Para la HP, se extrajeron 7-10 mL/kg de sangre total, sin reposición de líquidos intravenosos. Los resultados primarios fueron la factibilidad y la pérdida de sangre estimada (estimated blood loss, EBL). RESULTADOS: Un total de 62 pacientes se aleatorizaron a HP (n = 31) y a tratamiento estándar (n = 31), a un ritmo de 3,1 pacientes/mes, cumpliendo el co-objetivo primario de la factibilidad. La mediana de la diferencia de EBL fue 11 mL (P = 0,46). Entre los pacientes con alto riesgo de transfusión, la mediana de la diferencia de EBL fue 448 mL (P = 0,069). Los objetivos secundarios de factibilidad se consiguieron: reclutamiento (89%), cegamiento (98%), y objetivo de la flebotomía (7,6 ± 1,9 mL/kg). Los cirujanos que fueron cegados percibieron que la resección fue más fácil con la HP (52% versus 32%) y acertaron el uso de HP con una exactitud del 65%. No hubo diferencia significativa en las complicaciones globales (32% versus 48%), complicaciones mayores y transfusión. Entre aquellos pacientes de alto riesgo, la trasfusión se realizó en un 13% versus 33% (P = 0,33). CONCLUSIÓN: Se cumplieron los objetivos, pero no se identificó diferencia en EBL en este estudio de factibilidad. Ello justifica un ensayo multicéntrico (PRICE-2) con poder estadístico para identificar una diferencia en la transfusión de sangre perioperatoria.

Non-operative management of blunt hepatic trauma: Does angioembolization have a major impact?

PURPOSE: A paradigm shift toward non-operative management (NOM) of blunt hepatic trauma has occurred. With advances in percutaneous interventions, even severe liver injuries are being managed non-operatively. However, although overall mortality is decreased with NOM, liver-related morbidity remains high. This study was undertaken to explore the morbidity and mortality of blunt hepatic trauma in the era of angioembolization (AE). METHODS: A retrospective cohort of trauma patients with blunt hepatic injury who were assessed at our centre between 1999 and 2011 were identified. Logistic regression was undertaken to identify factors increasing the likelihood of operative management (OM) and mortality. RESULTS: We identified 396 patients with a mean ISS of 33 (± 14). Sixty-two (18%) patients had severe liver injuries (≥ AAST grade IV). OM occurred in 109 (27%) patients. Logistic regression revealed high ISS (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.05-1.10), and lower systolic blood pressure on arrival (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.99) to be associated with OM. The overall mortality was 17%. Older patients (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.03-1.07), those with high ISS (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.08-1.14) and those requiring OM (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.47-5.69) were more likely to die. Liver-related morbidities occurred in equal frequency in the OM (23%) and AE (29%) groups (p = 0.32). Only 3% of those with NOM experienced morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with blunt hepatic trauma can be successfully managed non-operatively. Morbidity associated with NOM was low. Patients requiring AE had morbidity similar to OM.