4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate is not inferior to andexanet alfa for the reversal or oral factor Xa inhibitors: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Andexanet Alfa (AA) is the only FDA approved reversal agent for apixaban and rivaroxaban (DOAC). There are no studies comparing its efficacy with 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate (PCC). This study aimed to compare PCC to AA for DOAC reversal, hypothesizing non-inferiority of PCC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, non-inferiority multicenter study of adult patients admitted from July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 who had taken a DOAC within 12 hours of injury, were transfused red blood cells (RBCs) or had traumatic brain injury, and received AA or PCC. Primary outcome was PRBC unit transfusion. Secondary outcome with ICU length of stay. MICE imputation was used to account for missing data and zero-inflated poisson regression was used to account for an excess of zero units of RBC transfused. 2 Units difference in RBC transfusion was selected as non-inferior. RESULTS: Results: From 263 patients at 10 centers, 77 (29%) received PCC and 186 (71%) AA. Patients had similar transfusion rates across reversal treatment groups (23.7% AA vs 19.5% PCC) with median transfusion in both groups of 0 RBC. According to the Poisson component, PCC increases the amount of RBC transfusion by 1.02 times (95% CI: 0.79-1.33) compared to AA after adjusting for other covariates. The averaged amount of RBC transfusion (non-zero group) is 6.13. Multiplying this number by the estimated rate ratio, PCC is estimated to have an increase RBC transfusion by 0.123 (95% CI: 0.53-2.02) units compared to AA. CONCLUSION: PCC appears non-inferior to AA for reversal of DOACs for RBC transfusion in traumatically injured patients. Additional prospective, randomized trials are necessary to compare PCC and AA for the treatment of hemorrhage in injured patients on DOACs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, Level III.

Comparison of surgical fixation and non-operative management in patients with traumatic sternum fracture.

PURPOSE: The incidence of sternal fractures in blunt trauma patients lies between 3 and 7%. The role, timing and indications for surgical management are not well delineated and remain controversial for patients undergoing surgical stabilization of sternum fracture (SSSF). We sought to identify the national rate of SSSF in patients with a sternum fracture hypothesizing patients undergoing SSSF will have a decreased rate of mortality and complications. METHODS: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2015-2016) was queried for patients with sternum fracture. Propensity scores were calculated to match patients undergoing SSSF to patients managed non-operatively in a 1:2 ratio using demographic data. RESULTS: From 9460 patients with a sternum fracture, 114 (1.2%) underwent SSSF. After propensity-matching, 112 SSSF patients were compared to 224 patients undergoing non-operative management (NOM). There were no differences in matched characteristics (all p > 0.05). Compared to patients undergoing NOM, patients undergoing SSSF had an increased median length of stay (LOS) (16 vs. 7 days, p < 0.001), ICU LOS (9.5 vs. 5.5 days, p = 0.016) and ventilator days (8 vs. 5, p = 0.035). The SSSF group had a similar rate of ARDS (2.7% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.80), pneumonia (1.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.48) and unplanned intubation (8.9% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.29) but a lower mortality rate (2.7% vs. 11.2%, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Just over 1% of patients with sternum fracture underwent SSSF in a national analysis. Patients undergoing SSSF had an increased LOS and similar rate of all measured pulmonary complications, however a lower mortality rate compared to patients managed non-operatively.

Head Over Wheels: Traumatic Head and Neck Injuries Secondary to Mountain Biking.

OBJECTIVES: The popularity of mountain biking (MTB) in the United States has risen in recent years. We sought to identify the prevalence and distribution of MTB associated head and neck injuries presenting to emergency departments across the U.S. and identify risk factors for hospital admission in this patient population. METHODS: The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) was queried for MTB related injuries of the head and neck from 2009 to 2018, with analysis for incidence, age, gender, anatomic site, and diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 486 cases were identified, corresponding to an estimated 18 952 head and neck MTB related ED visits. Patients were predominantly male (80.7%) and white (69.8%) with a median age of 35 years (interquartile range, 21-46 years). A majority (88.4%) of patients were released from the ED, but a significant proportion of patients were admitted (9.2%) or transferred (1.2%). The most common facial fractures were facial/not specified (35%), nasal bone (29%), mandible (15%), orbit (12%), and zygomaxillary complex (9%). The greatest predictors of hospital admission/transfer were injury to the mouth or neck and avulsion-type injury (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: MTB results in a significant number of traumatic head and neck injuries nationwide. Patients are primarily adult, white males. The majority of injuries result in discharge from the ED, however a small amount of these patients experience significant morbidity necessitating hospital admission. Understanding the distribution of MTB head and neck injuries may aid in the clinical evaluation of these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Comparison of Nonoperative and Operative Management of Traumatic Penetrating Internal Jugular Vein Injury.

BACKGROUND: Small case series have suggested that selective nonoperative management (NOM) of penetrating internal jugular vein (IJV) injuries is safe and feasible in select patients lacking "hard signs" mandating exploration. Therefore, we sought to compare NOM to operative management (OM) of penetrating IJV injury, hypothesizing that both strategies have similar patient outcomes and mortality when patients are appropriately selected. METHODS: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2013-2016) was queried for patients with penetrating IJV injury with an abbreviated injury scale score of the neck ≥3. Demographics and patient outcomes were compared between patients undergoing NOM and patients undergoing OM, followed by a multivariable logistic regression model to analyze the risk of mortality. RESULTS: A penetrating IJV injury was identified in 188 (0.01%) patients meeting inclusion criteria, and OM was performed in 124 (66.0%) patients, whereas 64 (34.0%) patients underwent NOM. Although the OM group had a higher rate of pneumothorax (8.9% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.01), there was no difference in any other concomitant injuries or demographic data (all P > 0.05). The OM group had a higher rate of ventilator days (3 vs. 2 days, P = 0.01) but no other significant differences in morbidity or mortality (P > 0.05). After controlling for covariates, OM was associated with similar risk of mortality compared with NOM of patients with penetrating IJV injury (odds ratio 1.05, confidence interval 0.23-4.83, P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: The NOM of penetrating IJV injuries is associated with similar risk of morbidity and mortality compared with OM, suggesting that NOM may be used in appropriately selected patients. Future research is needed to determine the ideal patients suited for NOM and to identify risk factors and outcomes associated with failure of NOM.