The impact of post-operative enteral nutrition on duodenal injury outcomes: A post hoc analysis of an EAST multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Leak following surgical repair of traumatic duodenal injuries results in prolonged hospitalization and oftentimes nil per os(NPO) treatment. Parenteral nutrition(PN) has known morbidity; however, duodenal leak(DL) patients often have complex injuries and hospital courses resulting in barriers to enteral nutrition(EN). We hypothesized EN alone would be associated with 1)shorter duration until leak closure and 2)less infectious complications and shorter hospital length of stay(HLOS) compared to PN. METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of a retrospective, multicenter study from 35 Level-1 trauma centers, including patients >14 years-old who underwent surgery for duodenal injuries(1/2010-12/2020) and endured post-operative DL. The study compared nutrition strategies: EN vs PN vs EN + PN using Chi-Square and Kruskal-Wallis tests; if significance was found pairwise comparison or Dunn's test were performed. RESULTS: There were 113 patients with DL: 43 EN, 22 PN, and 48 EN + PN. Patients were young(median age 28 years-old) males(83.2%) with penetrating injuries(81.4%). There was no difference in injury severity or critical illness among the groups, however there were more pancreatic injuries among PN groups. EN patients had less days NPO compared to both PN groups(12 days[IQR23] vs 40[54] vs 33[32],p = <0.001). Time until leak closure was less in EN patients when comparing the three groups(7 days[IQR14.5] vs 15[20.5] vs 25.5[55.8],p = 0.008). EN patients had less intra-abdominal abscesses, bacteremia, and days with drains than the PN groups(all p < 0.05). HLOS was shorter among EN patients vs both PN groups(27 days[24] vs 44[62] vs 45[31],p = 0.001). When controlling for predictors of leak, regression analysis demonstrated EN was associated with shorter HLOS(ß -24.9, 95%CI -39.0 to -10.7,p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EN was associated with a shorter duration until leak closure, less infectious complications, and shorter length of stay. Contrary to some conventional thought, PN was not associated with decreased time until leak closure. We therefore suggest EN should be the preferred choice of nutrition in patients with duodenal leaks whenever feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

To Drain or Not: Drainage Procedures Remain a Central Tenet of Management of Infected Collections in Acute Pancreatitis.

Recent literature advocates for delayed or avoidance of catheter drainage of infected peri-pancreatic collections (IPCs) in acute pancreatitis (AP). This may not be realistic for patients at academic centers, many of whom are critically ill. We retrospectively reviewed 72 patients admitted to our institution from 2016-2021 with AP and IPCs. 34.7% had a Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) score ≥3, and 56.9% had a Balthazar score of E. 65.3% were admitted to the ICU, 51.4% experienced respiratory failure, and 47.2% had acute renal failure. In-hospital mortality was 9.7%. Catheter-based drainage alone was the most frequent intervention. Only 8 individuals did not undergo any drainage. Individuals with severe AP complicated by IPCs are critically ill. Avoidance or delay of source control could lead to significant morbidity. Until further research is done on this population, drainage should remain a central tenet of management of IPCs.

Warfarin, not direct oral anticoagulants nor antiplatelet therapy, is associated with increased bleeding risk in emergency general surgery patients: implications in this new era of novel anticoagulants: An EAST Multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: To assess perioperative bleeding complications & in-hospital mortality in patients requiring emergency general surgery (EGS) presenting with a history of antiplatelet (AP) vs. direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) vs warfarin use. METHODS: Prospective observational study across 21 centers between 2019-2022. Inclusion criteria were age ≥ 18 years, & DOAC, warfarin or AP use within 24 hours of an EGSP. Outcomes included perioperative bleeding and in-hospital mortality. The study was conducted using ANOVA, Chi-square, and multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of the 413 patients, 221 (53.5%) reported AP use, 152 (36.8%) DOAC use, & 40 (9.7%) warfarin use. Most common indications for surgery were obstruction (23% (AP), 45% (DOAC), 28% (warfarin)), intestinal ischemia (13%, 17%, 23%), & diverticulitis/peptic ulcers (7%, 7%, 15%). Compared to DOAC use, warfarin use was associated with significantly higher perioperative bleeding complication (OR 4.4 [2.0, 9.9]). There was no significant difference in perioperative bleeding complication between DOAC & AP use (OR 0.7 [0.4, 1.1]). Compared to DOAC use, there was no significant difference in mortality between warfarin use (0.7 [0.2, 2.5]) or AP use (OR 0.5 [0.2, 1.2]). After adjusting for confounders, warfarin use (OR 6.3 [2.8, 13.9]), medical history and operative indication were associated with an increase in perioperative bleeding complications. However, warfarin was not independently associated with risk of mortality (OR 1.3 [0.39, 4.7]), whereas intraoperative vasopressor use (OR 4.7 [1.7, 12.8)), medical history & postoperative bleeding (OR 5.5 [2.4, 12.8]) were. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ongoing concerns about the increase in DOAC use & lack of readily available reversal agents, this study suggests that warfarin, rather than DOACs, is associated with higher perioperative bleeding complications. However, that risk does not result in an increase in mortality, suggesting that perioperative decisions should be dictated by patient disease & comorbidities rather than type of antiplatelet or anticoagulant use.

Does lower extremity fracture fixation technique influence neurologic outcomes in patients with traumatic brain injury? The EAST Brain vs. Bone multicenter trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether lower extremity fracture fixation technique and timing (≤24 vs. >24 hours) impact neurologic outcomes in TBI patients. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted across 30 trauma centers. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years and older, head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of >2, and a diaphyseal femur or tibia fracture requiring external fixation (Ex-Fix), intramedullary nailing (IMN), or open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). The analysis was conducted using analysis of variamce, Kruskal-Wallis, and multivariable regression models. Neurologic outcomes were measured by discharge Ranchos Los Amigos Revised Scale (RLAS-R). RESULTS: Of the 520 patients enrolled, 358 underwent Ex-Fix, IMN, or ORIF as definitive management. Head AIS was similar among cohorts. The Ex-Fix group experienced more severe lower extremity injuries (AIS score, 4-5) compared with the IMN group (16% vs. 3%, p = 0.01) but not the ORIF group (16% vs. 6%, p = 0.1). Time to operative intervention varied between the cohorts with the longest time to intervention for the IMN group (median hours: Ex-Fix, 15 [8-24] vs. ORIF, 26 [12-85] vs. IMN, 31 [12-70]; p < 0.001). The discharge RLAS-R score distribution was similar across the groups. After adjusting for confounders, neither method nor timing of lower extremity fixation influenced the discharge RLAS-R. Instead, increasing age and head AIS score were associated with a lower discharge RLAS-R score (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.002-1.03 and OR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.75-3.22), and a higher Glasgow Coma Scale motor score on admission (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73-0.97) was associated with higher RLAS-R score at discharge. CONCLUSION: Neurologic outcomes in TBI are impacted by severity of the head injury and not the fracture fixation technique or timing. Therefore, the strategy of definitive fixation of lower extremity fractures should be dictated by patient physiology and the anatomy of the injured extremity and not by the concern for worsening neurologic outcomes in TBI patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Anticoagulation in emergency general surgery: Who bleeds more? The EAST multicenter trials ACES study.

BACKGROUND: While direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use is increasing in the Emergency General Surgery (EGS) patient population, our understanding of their bleeding risk in the acute setting remains limited. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of perioperative bleeding complications in patients using DOACs versus warfarin and AP therapy requiring urgent/emergent EGS procedures (EGSPs). METHODS: This was a prospective observational trial, conducted between 2019 and 2022, across 21 centers. Inclusion criteria were 18 years or older, DOAC, warfarin/AP use within 24 hours of requiring an urgent/emergent EGSP. Demographics, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected. ANOVA, χ 2 , and multivariable regression models were used to conduct the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 413 patients enrolled in the study, 261 (63%) reported warfarin/AP use and 152 (37%) reported DOAC use. Appendicitis and cholecystitis were the most frequent indication for operative intervention in the warfarin/AP group (43.4% vs. 25%, p = 0.001). Small bowel obstruction/abdominal wall hernias were the main indication for operative intervention in the DOAC group (44.7% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.001). Intraoperative, postoperative, and perioperative bleeding complications and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups. After adjusting for confounders, a history of chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; p = 0.015) and indication for operative intervention including occlusive mesenteric ischemia (OR, 4.27; p = 0.016), nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia (OR, 3.13; p = 0.001), and diverticulitis (OR, 3.72; p = 0.019) were associated with increased perioperative bleeding complications. The need for an intraoperative transfusion (OR, 4.87; p < 0.001), and intraoperative vasopressors (OR, 4.35; p = 0.003) were associated with increased in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: Perioperative bleeding complications and mortality are impacted by the indication for EGSPs and patient's severity of illness rather than a history of DOAC or warfarin/AP use. Therefore, perioperative management should be guided by patient physiology and indication for surgery rather than the concern for recent antiplatelet or anticoagulant use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

Outcomes among trauma patients with duodenal leak following primary versus complex repair of duodenal injuries: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Duodenal leak is a feared complication of repair, and innovative complex repairs with adjunctive measures (CRAM) were developed to decrease both leak occurrence and severity when leaks occur. Data on the association of CRAM and duodenal leak are sparse, and its impact on duodenal leak outcomes is nonexistent. We hypothesized that primary repair alone (PRA) would be associated with decreased duodenal leak rates; however, CRAM would be associated with improved recovery and outcomes when leaks do occur. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter analysis from 35 Level 1 trauma centers included patients older than 14 years with operative, traumatic duodenal injuries (January 2010 to December 2020). The study sample compared duodenal operative repair strategy: PRA versus CRAM (any repair plus pyloric exclusion, gastrojejunostomy, triple tube drainage, duodenectomy). RESULTS: The sample (N = 861) was primarily young (33 years) men (84%) with penetrating injuries (77%); 523 underwent PRA and 338 underwent CRAM. Complex repairs with adjunctive measures were more critically injured than PRA and had higher leak rates (CRAM 21% vs. PRA 8%, p < 0.001). Adverse outcomes were more common after CRAM with more interventional radiology drains, prolonged nothing by mouth and length of stay, greater mortality, and more readmissions than PRA (all p < 0.05). Importantly, CRAM had no positive impact on leak recovery; there was no difference in number of operations, drain duration, nothing by mouth duration, need for interventional radiology drainage, hospital length of stay, or mortality between PRA leak versus CRAM leak patients (all p > 0.05). Furthermore, CRAM leaks had longer antibiotic duration, more gastrointestinal complications, and longer duration until leak resolution (all p < 0.05). Primary repair alone was associated with 60% lower odds of leak, whereas injury grades II to IV, damage control, and body mass index had higher odds of leak (all p < 0.05). There were no leaks among patients with grades IV and V injuries repaired by PRA. CONCLUSION: Complex repairs with adjunctive measures did not prevent duodenal leaks and, moreover, did not reduce adverse sequelae when leaks did occur. Our results suggest that CRAM is not a protective operative duodenal repair strategy, and PRA should be pursued for all injury grades when feasible. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.