Blood volume analysis can distinguish true anemia from hemodilution in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral hematocrit (pHct) is traditionally used as a marker for blood loss. In critically ill patients who are fluid resuscitated, pHct may not adequately represent red blood cell volume (RBCV). We hypothesize that the use of pHct alone may overestimate anemia, potentially leading to unnecessary interventions. METHODS: Patients admitted to the intensive care unit underwent blood volume analysis. Serial blood samples were collected after injection of I-albumin. Samples were then processed by the Blood Volume Analyzer-100. RBCV and total blood volume (TBV) were calculated using the directly measured plasma volume (PV) and pHct. A computed normalized hematocrit (nHct) adjusts pHct to the patient's ideal blood volume. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (21 men), aged 49.8 years ± 18.4 years, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II score 14.9 ± 8.1, and injury severity score 29.4 ± 12.4 had 84 blood volume analyses performed on 3 consecutive days. Using ratios of TBV compared with ideal TBV, patients were stratified into three separate groups: hypovolemic (16 of 84), normovolemic (23 of 84), and hypervolemic (45 of 84). Mean differences between pHct and nHct in each group were 4.5% ± 3.1% (p≤0.01), 0.0% ± 1.2% (p=0.85), and -6.5% ± 4.1% (p≤0.01), respectively. pHct, when compared with nHct, diagnosed anemia (Hct <30) nearly equal within the hypovolemic and normovolemic groups. However, pHct overdiagnosed anemia in 46.7% of hypervolemic patients. CONCLUSION: Use of blood volume analysis in critically ill patients may help to distinguish true anemia from hemodilution, potentially preventing unnecessary interventions.

Long-term morbidity, pain, and disability after repair of severe chest wall injuries.

Long-term morbidity after severe chest wall injuries is common. We report our experience with acute chest wall injury repair, focusing on long-term outcomes and comparing our patients' health status with the general population. We performed a retrospective medical record review supplemented with a postal survey of long-term outcomes including the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and RAND-36 Health Survey. RAND-36 outcomes were compared with reference values from the Medical Outcomes Study and from the general population. Forty-six patients underwent acute chest wall repair between September 1996 and September 2005. Indications included flail chest with failure to wean from the ventilator (18 patients), acute, intractable pain associated with severely displaced rib fractures (15 patients), acute chest wall defect/deformity (5 patients), acute pulmonary herniation (3 patients), and thoracotomy for other traumatic indications (5 patients). Three patients had a concomitant sternal fracture repair. Fifteen patients with a current mean age of 60.6 years (range 30-91) responded to our surveys a mean of 48.5 +/- 22.3 months (range 19-96) postinjury. Mean long-term MPQ Pain Rating Index was 6.7 +/- 2.1. RAND-36 indices indicated equivalent or better health status compared with references with the exception of role limitations due to physical problems when compared with the general population. The operative repair of severe chest wall injuries is associated with low long-term morbidity and pain, as well as health status nearly equivalent to the general population. Both the MPQ and the RAND-36 surveys were useful tools for determining chest wall pain and disability outcomes.

Surveyed opinion of American trauma, orthopedic, and thoracic surgeons on rib and sternal fracture repair.

INTRODUCTION: Rib and sternal fracture repair are controversial. The opinion of surgeons regarding those patients who would benefit from repair is unknown. METHODS: Members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, the Orthopedic Trauma Association, and thoracic surgeons (THS) affiliated with teaching hospitals in the United States were recruited to complete an electronic survey regarding rib and sternal fracture repair. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-eight trauma surgeons (TRS), 97 orthopedic trauma surgeons (OTS), and 70 THS completed the survey. Eighty-two percent of TRS, 66% of OTS, and 71% of THS thought that rib fracture repair was indicated in selected patients. A greater proportion of surgeons thought that sternal fracture repair was indicated in selected patients (89% of TRS, 85% of OTS, and 95% of THS). Chest wall defect/pulmonary hernia (58%) and sternal fracture nonunion (>6 weeks) (68%) were the only two indications accepted by a majority of respondents. Twenty-six percent of surgeons reported that they had performed or assisted on a chest wall fracture repair, whereas 22% of surgeons were familiar with published randomized trials of the surgical repair of flail chest. Of surgeons who thought rib fracture or sternal fracture repair was rarely, if ever, indicated, 91% and 95%, respectively, specified that a randomized trial confirming efficacy would be necessary to change their negative opinion. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of surveyed surgeons reported that rib and sternal fracture repair is indicated in selected patients; however, a much smaller proportion indicated that they had performed the procedures. The published literature on surgical repair is sparse and unfamiliar to most surgeons. Barriers to surgical repair of rib and sternal fracture include a lack of expertise among TRS, lack of research of optimal techniques, and a dearth of randomized trials.