Systemic anticoagulation in the setting of vascular extremity trauma

Postoperative antiplatelet and/or anticoagulation use does not impact complication or reintervention rates after vein repair of arterial injury: A PROOVIT study

INTRODUCTION

The use of antiplatelet (AP) and anticoagulation (AC) therapy after autogenous vein repair of traumatic arterial injury is controversial. The hypothesis in this study was that there is no difference in early postoperative outcomes regardless of whether AC, AP, both, or neither are used.

METHODS

The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) PROspective Observational Vascular Injury Treatment (PROOVIT) registry was queried from November, 2013, to January, 2019, for arterial injuries repaired with a vein graft. Demographics and injury characteristics were compared. Need for in-hospital reoperation was the primary outcome in this four-arm study, assessed with two ordinal logistic regression models (1. no therapy vs. AC only vs. AC and AP; 2. no therapy vs. AP only vs. AC and AP).

RESULTS

373 patients (52 no therapy, 88 AP only, 77 AC only, 156 both) from 19 centers with recorded Injury Severity Scores (ISS) were identified. Patients who received no therapy were younger than those who received AP (27.0 vs. 34.2, p = 0.02), had higher transfusion requirement (p < 0.01 between all groups) and a different distribution of anatomic injury (p < 0.01). After controlling for age, sex, ISS, platelet count, hemoglobin, pH, lactate, INR, transfusion requirement and anatomic location, there was no association with postoperative medical therapy and in-hospital operative reintervention, or any secondary outcome, including thrombosis (p = 0.67, p = 0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

Neither AC nor AP alone, nor in combination, impact complication rate after arterial repair with autologous vein. These patients can be safely treated with or without antithrombotics, recognizing that this study did not demonstrate a beneficial effect.

Management of vascular trauma across Canada: A cohort study with implications for practice

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to provide a description of vascular trauma and its management at trauma centers across Canada.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study evaluated patients from 8 Canadian level 1 trauma centers (2011-2015). Medical records were queried to identify adult patients who survived to hospital with major vascular injury. Major vascular injury was defined as injury to named arterial or venous vessels in the legs, arms torso, and neck. Data collected included patient demographics, injury mechanism, injury details, management and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1330 patients were included. Patients were 76% male with a mean age of 43 (SD 18.8). Reported injuries were 63% blunt, 36% penetrating, and the remainder mixed. The most common specific mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle collision (36%), stabbing (26%), and falls (16%), with gunshot injuries accounting for <5%. Pre-hospital tourniquets were applied in 27 patients (2%). The mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 24 (SD 14.5). We identified injuries to named vessels of the neck (32%), thorax (23%), abdomen and pelvis (27%), upper extremity (14%) and lower extremity (10%). Specific vascular injuries included transection (50%), complete occlusion (11%), partial occlusion (39%), and pseudoaneurysm formation (11%). Injuries were managed non-operatively in 32%, with definitive open surgical management (24%), endovascular management (9%) and with damage control techniques in the operating room (3%). Amputation occurred in 10% of lower extremity and 5% of upper extremity injuries. Responsibility for vascular injury management was undertaken by a wide variety of specialists (n = 17). Overall, in-hospital mortality was 13%, and 2% of patients underwent amputation.

CONCLUSION

This study describes the nature and management of vascular injuries across Canada. The variability in injury mechanisms, management strategies, specialty responsible for management, and outcomes have important implications for practice change and knowledge translation.

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines on diagnosis and management of peripheral vascular injuries

The peripheral arteries and veins of the extremities are among the most commonly injured vessels in both civilian and military vascular trauma. Blunt causes are more frequent than penetrating except during military conflicts and in certain geographic areas. Physical examination and simple bedside investigations of pulse pressures are key in early identification of these injuries. In stable patients with equivocal physical examinations, computed tomography angiograms have become the mainstay of screening and diagnosis. Immediate open surgical repair remains the first-line therapy in most patients. However, advances in endovascular therapies and more widespread availability of this technology have resulted in an increase in the range of injuries and frequency of utilization of minimally invasive treatments for vascular injuries in stable patients. Prevention of and early detection and treatment of compartment syndrome remain essential in the recovery of patients with significant peripheral vascular injuries. The decision to perform amputation in patients with mangled extremities remains difficult with few clear indicators. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma in conjunction with the World Society of Emergency Surgery seeks to summarize the literature to date and provide guidelines on the presentation, diagnosis, and treatment of peripheral vascular injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Review study, level IV.

Temporary intravascular shunt use improves early limb salvage after extremity vascular injury

OBJECTIVE

The use of temporary intravascular shunts (TIVSs) allow for restoration of distal perfusion and reduce ischemic time in the setting of arterial injury. As a damage control method, adjunct shunts restore perfusion during treatment of life-threatening injuries, or when patients require evacuation to a higher level of care. Single-center reports and case series have demonstrate that TIVS use can extend the opportunity for limb salvage. However, few multi-institutional studies on the topic have been reported. The objective of the present study was to characterize TIVS use through a multi-institutional registry and define its effects on early limb salvage.

METHODS

Data from the Prospective Observation Vascular Injury Treatment registry was analyzed. Civilian patients aged ≥18 years who had sustained an extremity vascular injury from September 2012 to November 2018 were included. Patients who had a TIVS used in the management of vascular injury were included in the TIVS group and those who had received treatment without a TIVS served as the control group. An unadjusted comparison of the groups was conducted to evaluate the differences in the baseline and outcome characteristics. Double robust estimation combining logistic regression with propensity score matching was used to evaluate the effect of TIVS usage on the primary end point of limb salvage.

RESULTS

TIVS use was identified in 78 patients from 24 trauma centers. The control group included 613 patients. Unmatched analysis demonstrated that the TIVS group was more severely injured (mean ± standard deviation injury severity score, 18.83 ± 11.76 for TIVS vs 14.93 ± 10.46 for control; P = .002) and had more severely mangled extremities (mean ± standard deviation abbreviated injury scale, extremity, score 3.23 ± 0.80 for TIVS vs 2.95 ± 0.87 for control; P = .008). Logistic regression demonstrated that propensity-matched control patients had a three times greater likelihood of amputation compared with the TIVS patients (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-11.1; P = .026). Concomitant nerve injury and orthopedic fracture were associated with a greater risk of amputation. The median follow-up for the TIVS group was 12 days (interquartile range, 4-25 days) compared with 9 days (interquartile range, 4-18 days) for the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first multicenter, matched-cohort study to characterize early limb salvage as a function of TIVS use in the setting of extremity vascular injury. Shunts expedite limb perfusion and resulted in lower rates of amputation during the early phase of care. The use of TIVS should be one part of a more aggressive approach to restore perfusion in the most injured patients and ischemic limbs.

Through Thick or Thin: Disparities in Perioperative Anticoagulant Use in Trauma Patients

Although vascular surgery guidelines recommend immediate anticoagulation for acute occlusion of a peripheral artery, it is unclear whether trauma surgeons follow this practice. A survey regarding the use of perioperative anticoagulation was sent to surgeons who perform their own peripheral arterial repairs after traumatic injury to define contemporary practice patterns. This survey demonstrated minimal consensus opinion regarding the management of extremity vascular injuries, strongly suggesting the need for a consensus conference, meta-analysis, and prospective studies to guide further care.

The Utility of Therapeutic Anticoagulation in the Perioperative Period in Patients Presenting in Emergency Surgical Department With Extremity Vascular Injuries

Extremity vascular trauma is a challenging surgical emergency in both civilian population and combat environment. It requires vigilant diagnosis and prompt treatment to minimize limb loss and mortality. A multidisciplinary team approach is required to deal with shock states, concomitant abdominal injuries, head injuries, and fractures with significant tissue loss and psychological stress.

Anticoagulation is frequently used during traumatic vascular repair to avoid repair site thrombosis, postoperative deep venous thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism (PE). In this review article, we are going to search about how frequent is the use of anticoagulation in terms of limb salvage rates, and mortality rates or side effects of anticoagulation in terms of risk of bleeding episodes, and the need for future prospective studies.

Extremity vascular trauma is managed by a variety of methods including open repairs, endovascular repairs, and nonoperative management. Most of the literature demonstrates the use of systemic or regional anticoagulation in the management of vascular injuries with the improvement in limb salvage rates and reduced morbidities but confounding factors lead to variable results. Some studies show an increased risk of bleeding in trauma patients with the use of anticoagulants in trauma settings without any significant effect on repair site thrombosis. More comprehensive studies and randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the importance of perioperative anticoagulation while avoiding the confounding factors in terms of injury severity scores, ischemia time, demographics of patients, modes of injury, comorbidities, grades of shock, concomitant injuries that need anticoagulation like venous injuries or intracranial injuries that are contraindications to the use of anticoagulation, type of anticoagulation and expertise available as well as the experience level of the operating surgeon. Literature also reveals the use of new oral anticoagulants (e.g., dabigatran) to be associated with lesser bleeding episodes when compared to warfarin, so in future, we can check the feasibility of these agents to reduce the bleeding episodes and at the same time improve the limb salvage rates.

A meta-analysis on anticoagulation after vascular trauma

Purpose

There is much debate regarding the use of anticoagulation following vascular trauma. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcome of trauma following administration of anticoagulation medication.

Methods

The literature search was carried out using Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed databases to search for keywords and MeSH terms including “Anticoagulation”, “Vascular Surgery”, “Vascular Trauma”, “Vascular Repair”, “Repair” and “Wounds and Injuries”.

Results

Use of anticoagulation was associated with a better prognosis for overall vascular trauma outcomes (weighted OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.34–0.64; P < 0.00001), as well as reduced risk of amputation for both lower and upper limb vascular trauma (weighted OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.22–0.78; P = 0.007), and reduced occurrence of reoperation events and amputations in isolated lower limb vascular trauma (weighted OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14–0.52; P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

There was a statistically significant correlation between the use of anticoagulation and vascular trauma outcome. A major limitation with many of the studies includes a lack of prospective analysis and therefore we recommend prospective studies to properly elucidate prognostic outcomes following use of these anticoagulants. Further studies need to be conducted to assess the effects of timing of anticoagulant delivery, dosages and severity of traumatic injury. Thus, this would prove to be very useful in the formation of guidelines.

Controversial case: Revascularization of a popliteal vascular injury of poor prognosis

•

We need to revaluate and modify our current amputation prediction scores.

•

More than 6 h of ischemia does not translate to a bad prognosis.

•

There are multiple variables that affect the evolution of the patient.

•

It is important to consider revascularization especially in all young patients without significant concomitant injuries and lack of comorbidities.

Introduction

Popliteal injuries are significant health risk that could induce permanent functional impairment, limb loss, and in some cases death. Currently, there is a controversy about the required treatment between amputation and a limb salvage surgery, which in some cases could cause more prominent functional impairment than the amputation. Different indicators help to predict, in some extent, the risk of amputation, however most of them were described two decades ago.

Presentation of case

A patient with a prolonged hot ischemia and in critical conditions, which had no favorable clinical indicators for revascularization is shown and discussed. By means of intraoperative analysis, it was decided to perform a revascularization for limb salvage, progressing with a positive outcome.

Discussion

Advancements in medical and vascular surgery, such as osteovascularized grafts, the use of flaps to cover large defects, the Ilizarov method for bone elongation and stabilization, the use of growth factors, negative pressure therapy, and the use of extracellular matrix, the improvements of intensive care units (ICU), among others, make necessary to revisit and reevaluate these indicators. The accuracy of these indicators has dropped significantly, and currently the medical evaluation cannot longer only depend on them.

Conclusion

Our results suggest the need to revisit and improve the predicting indicators scores for amputation prognosis that should include a preoperative and transoperative analysis.