ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Indications for angioembolization (AE) following liver injury are not clearly defined. This study evaluated the outcomes and complications of hepatic AE. We hypothesize hepatic angioembolization is a useful adjunct to non-operative management of liver injury but with significant morbidity. METHODS: Subjects were identified utilizing trauma registries from centers in a regional trauma network from 2010 to 2017 with an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) coded hepatic injury and an ICD9/10 for hepatic angiography (HA). RESULTS: 1319 patients with liver injuries were identified, with 30 (2.3%) patients undergoing HA: median ISS was 26, and median liver AIS was 4. Twenty-three subjects required AE. 81% had extravasation on CT from a liver injury. 63% underwent HA as initial intervention. 43% of AE subjects had liver-related complications with 35% 30-day readmission but with zero 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: While there were zero reported deaths, a high rate of morbidity and readmission was found. This may be due to the angioembolization or the liver injury itself.
Subject(s)
Embolization, Therapeutic/adverse effects , Embolization, Therapeutic/methods , Liver/injuries , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Angiography , Female , Hepatic Artery , Humans , Liver/blood supply , Liver/diagnostic imaging , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Wounds and Injuries/therapy , Young AdultSubject(s)
Blood Coagulation Disorders/complications , Blood Coagulation , Precision Medicine/methods , Resuscitation/methods , Wounds and Injuries/therapy , Blood Coagulation Disorders/blood , Blood Coagulation Disorders/therapy , Humans , Sex Factors , Wounds and Injuries/blood , Wounds and Injuries/complicationsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Stroke secondary to blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) most often occurs before initiation of antithrombotic therapy. Earlier treatment, especially in multiply injured patients with relative contraindications to antithrombotic agents, could be facilitated with improved risk stratification; furthermore, the relationship between BCVI-attributed stroke and hypercoagulability remains unknown. We hypothesized that patients who suffer BCVI-related stroke are hypercoagulable compared with those with BCVI who do not stroke. METHODS: Rapid thromboelastography (TEG) was evaluated for patients with BCVI-attributed stroke at an urban Level I trauma center from 2011 to 2018. Contemporary controls who had BCVI but did not stroke were selected for comparison using propensity-score matching with 20% caliper that accounted for age, sex, injury severity, and BCVI location and grade. RESULTS: During the study period, 15,347 patients were admitted following blunt trauma. Blunt cerebrovascular injury was identified in 435 (3%) patients, of whom 28 experienced associated stroke and had a TEG within 24 hours of arrival. Forty-nine patients who had BCVI but did not suffer stroke served as matched controls. Stroke patients formed clots faster as evident in their larger angle (77.5 degrees vs. 74.6 degrees, p = 0.03) and had greater clot strength as indicated by their higher maximum amplitude (MA) (66.9 mm vs. 61.9 mm, p < 0.01). Activated clotting time was shorter among stroke patients but not significantly (113 seconds vs. 121 seconds, p > 0.05). Increased angle and elevated MA were significant predictors of stroke with odds ratios of 2.97 for angle greater than 77.3 degrees and 4.30 for MA greater than 63.0 mm. CONCLUSION: Patients who suffer BCVI-related stroke are hypercoagulable compared with those with BCVI who remain asymptomatic. Increased angle or MA should be considered when assessing the risk of thrombosis and determining the optimal time to initiate antithrombotic therapy in patients with BCVI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, Level III.
