Is there a difference in efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness between 3-factor and 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrates among trauma patients on oral anticoagulants?

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of 3-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (3F-PCC) vs 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate PCC (4F-PCC) in trauma patients requiring reversal of oral anticoagulants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive trauma patients with coagulopathy (international normalized ratio [INR] ≥1.5) secondary to oral anticoagulants who received either 3F-PCC or 4F-PCC from 2010 to 2014 at 2 trauma centers were reviewed. Efficacy was determined by assessing the first INR post-PCC administration, and successful reversal was defined as INR less than 1.5. Safety was assessed by reviewing thromboembolic events, and cost-effectiveness was calculated using total treatment costs (drug acquisition plus transfusion costs) per successful reversal. RESULTS: Forty-six patients received 3F-PCC, and 18 received 4F-PCC. Baseline INR was similar for 3F-PCC and 4F-PCC patients (3.1 ± 2.3 vs 3.4 ± 3.7, P = .520). The initial PCC dose was 29 ± 9 U/kg for 3F-PCC and 26 ± 6 U/kg for 4F-PCC (P = .102). The follow-up INR was 1.6 ± 0.6 for 3F-PCC and 1.3 ± 0.2 for 4F-PCC (P = .001). Successful reversal rates in patients were 83% for 4F-PCC and 50% for 3F-PCC (P = .022). Thromboembolic events were observed in 15% of patients with 3F-PCC vs 0% with 4F-PCC (P = .177). Cost-effectiveness favored 4F-PCC ($5382 vs $3797). CONCLUSIONS: Three-factor PCC and 4F-PCC were both safe in correcting INR, but 4F-PCC was more effective, leading to better cost-effectiveness. Replacing 3F-PCC with 4F-PCC for urgent coagulopathy reversal may benefit patients and institutions.

Geriatric trauma G-60 falls with hip fractures: A pilot study of acute pain management using femoral nerve fascia iliac blocks.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures due to falls cause significant morbidity and mortality among geriatric patients. A significant unmet need is an optimal pain management strategy. Consequently, patients are treated with standard analgesic care (SAC) regimens, which deliver high narcotic doses. However, narcotics are associated with delirium as well as gastrointestinal and respiratory failure risks. The purpose of this pilot study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of ultrasound-guided continuous compartmental fascia iliaca block (CFIB) in patients 60 years or older with hip fractures in comparison with SAC alone. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of 108 patients 60 years or older, with acute pain secondary to hip fracture (2012-2013). Patient variables were age, sex, comorbidities, and Injury Severity Score (ISS). Primary outcome was pain scores; secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, discharge disposition, morbidity, and mortality. Statistical analysis was performed using (IBM SPSS version 22). For group comparison (SAC vs. SAC + CFIB) median test, repeated-measures analysis and Student's t test of transformed pain scores were used. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients received SAC only, and 44 patients received SAC + CFIB. Each CFIB placement was successful on first attempt without complications. Median time from emergency department arrival to block placement was 12.5 hours (interquartile range, 4-22 hours). Patients who received SAC + CFIB had significantly lower pain score ratings than patients treated with SAC alone. There were no differences in inpatient morbidity and mortality rates. Patients treated with SAC + CFIB were discharged home more often (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided CFIB is safe, practical, and readily integrated into the G-60 service for improved pain management of hip fractures. We are now conducting a prospective randomized control trial to confirm our observations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.

Geriatric trauma hip fractures: is there a difference in outcomes based on fracture patterns?

BACKGROUND: Annually in the US, there are over 300,000 hospital admissions due to hip fractures in geriatric patients. Consequently, there have been several large observational studies, which continue to provide new insights into differences in outcomes among hip fracture patients. However, few hip fracture studies have specifically examined the relationship between hip fracture patterns, sex, and short-term outcomes including hospital length of stay and discharge disposition in geriatric trauma patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of hip fractures in geriatric trauma patients. Hip fracture patterns were based on ICD -9 CM diagnostic codes for hip fractures (820.00-820.9). Patient variables were patient demographics, mechanism of injury, injury severity score, hospital and ICU length of stay, co-morbidities, injury location, discharge disposition, and in-patient mortality. RESULTS: A total of 325 patient records met the inclusion criteria. The mean age of the patients was 82.2 years, and the majority of the patients were white (94%) and female (70%). Hip fractures patterns were categorized as two fracture classes and three fracture types. We observed a difference in the proportion of males to females within each fracture class (Femoral neck fractures Z-score = -8.86, p < 0.001, trochanteric fractures Z-score = -5.63, p < 0.001). Hip fractures were fixed based on fracture pattern and patient characteristics. Hip fracture class or fracture type did not predict short-term outcomes such as in-hospital or ICU length of stay, death, or patient discharge disposition. The majority of patients (73%) were injured at home. However, 84% of the patients were discharged to skilled nursing facility, rehabilitation, or long-term care while only 16% were discharged home. There was no evidence of significant association between fracture pattern, injury severity score, diabetes mellitus, hypertension or dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Hip fracture patterns differ between geriatric male and female trauma patients. However, there was no significant association between fracture patterns and short-term patient outcomes. Further studies are planned to investigate the effect of fracture pattern and long-term outcomes including 90-day mortality, return to previous levels of activity, and other quality of life measures.

Preperitoneal surgery using a self-adhesive mesh for inguinal hernia repair.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Laparoscopic preperitoneal hernia repair with mesh has been reported to result in improved patient outcomes. However, there are few published data on the use of a totally extraperitoneal (TEP) approach. The purpose of this study was to present our experience and evaluate early outcomes of TEP inguinal hernia repair with self-adhesive mesh. METHODS: This cohort study was a retrospective review of patients who underwent laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernial repair from April 4, 2010, through July 22, 2014. Data assessed were age, sex, body mass index (BMI), hernia repair indications, hernia type, pain, paresthesia, occurrence (bilateral or unilateral), recurrence, and patient satisfaction. Descriptive and regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Six hundred forty patients underwent laparoscopic preperitoneal hernia surgery with self-adhesive mesh. The average age was 56 years, nearly all were men (95.8%), and the mean BMI was 26.2 kg/m(2). Cases involved primary hernia more frequently than recurrent hernia (94% vs 6%; P < .05). After surgery, 92% of the patients reported no more than minimal pain, <1% reported paresthesia, and 0.2% had early recurrence. There were 7 conversions to an open procedure. The patients had no adverse reactions to anesthesia and no bladder injury. Postoperative acute pain or recurrence was not explained by demographics, BMI, or preoperative pain. There were significant associations of hernia side, recurrence, occurrence, and sex with composite end points. Nearly all patients (98%) were satisfied with the outcome. CONCLUSION: The use of self-adhesive, Velcro-type mesh in laparoscopic TEP inguinal hernia repair is associated with reduced pain; low rates of early recurrence, infection, and hematoma; and improved patient satisfaction.