Impact of splenic injury guidelines on hospital stay and charges in patients with isolated splenic injury

Pre- and post-implementation protocol for non-operative management of grade III-V splenic injuries: An observational study

Background

Grade (III-V) blunt splenic injuries (BSI) in hemodynamically stable patients represent clinical challenges for successful non-operative management (NOM). In 2014, Our institution proposed a treatment protocol requiring splenic angiography and embolization for stable, intermediate, and high-grade BSI. It also included a follow-up CT scan for grade III BSI. We sought to assess the success rate of NOM in treating intermediate and high-grade BSI, following a standardized treatment protocol at a level 1 trauma center.

Methods

An observational retrospective study was conducted. Data of patients with BSI from June 2011 to September 2019 were reviewed using the Qatar National Trauma Registry. Patients' demographics, CT scan and angiographic findings, grade of splenic injuries, and outcomes were analyzed. The pre- and post-implementation of treatment protocol periods were compared.

Results

During the study period, a total of 552 hemodynamically stable patients with BSI were admitted, of which 240 had BSI with grade III to V. Eighty-one patients (33.8%) were admitted in the pre-protocol implementation period and 159 (66.2%) in the post-protocol implementation period. The NOM rate increased from 50.6% in the pre-protocol group to 65.6% in the post-protocol group (p = 0.02). In addition, failure of the conservative treatment did not significantly differ in the two periods, while the requirement for blood transfusion dropped from 64.2% to 45.9% (p = 0.007). The frequency of CT scan follow-up (55.3% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.001) and splenic arterial embolization (32.7% vs. 2.5%, p = 0.001) in NOM patients increased significantly in the post-protocol group compared to the pre-protocol group. Overall mortality was similar between the two periods. However, hospital and ICU length of stay and ventilatory days were higher in the post-protocol group.

Conclusions

NOM is an effective and safe treatment option for grade III-V BSI patients. Using standardized treatment guidelines for intermediate-to high-grade splenic injuries could increase the success rate for NOM and limit unnecessary laparotomy. Moreover, angioembolization is a crucial adjunct to NOM that could improve the success rate.

Evidence-Based Management and Controversies in Blunt Splenic Trauma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The study aims to describe the evidence-based management and controversies in blunt splenic trauma.

RECENT FINDINGS

A shift from operative management to non-operative management (NOM) has occurred over the past decades where NOM has now become the standard of care in haemodynamically stable patients with blunt splenic injury. Splenic artery embolisation (SAE) is generally believed to increase the success rate of NOM. Not all the available evidence is that optimistic about SAE however. A morbidity specifically related to SAE of up to 47% has been reported. Although high-grade splenic injury is a prognostic factor for failure of NOM, an American research group has published a study in which NOM is performed in over half of haemodynamically stable patients with grade IV or V splenic injury without leading to an increased morbidity (in terms of complications) or mortality. Another area of current investigation in the literature is the exact indication for SAE. Although the generally accepted indication is the presence of vascular injury, a topic of current investigation is whether there might be a role for pre-emptive embolisation in patients with high-grade splenic injury. On the other hand, evidence is also emerging that not all blushes require an intervention (small blushes <1 or 1.5 cm do not). Lastly, the available evidence shows that splenic function is preserved after embolisation, and therefore, the routine administration of vaccinations seems not to be necessary. There might be a difference between proximal and distal embolisations; however, with regard to splenic function, in favour of distal embolisation.

SUMMARY

Nowadays, NOM is the standard of care in haemodynamically stable patients with blunt splenic injury. The available evidence (although with a relatively small number of patients) shows that splenic function is preserved after NOM, a major advantage compared to splenectomy. SAE is used as an adjunct to observation in order to increase the success rate of NOM. Operative management should be applied in case of haemodynamic instability or if associated intra-abdominal injuries requiring surgical treatment are present. Patient selection (which patient can be safely treated non-operatively, does every blush needs to be embolised?, which patients might be better off with direct operative intervention given the patient and injury characteristics) is an ongoing subject of further research. Future studies should also focus on long-term outcomes of patients treated with embolisation (e.g. total number of lifetime infectious episodes requiring antibiotic treatment or hospital admission, quality of life).

Variation in intensive care unit utilization and mortality after blunt splenic injury

BACKGROUND

Although trauma patients are frequently cared for in the intensive care unit (ICU), admission triage criteria are unclear and may vary among providers and institutions. The benefits of close monitoring must be weighed against the economic and opportunity costs of an ICU admission.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients treated for blunt splenic injuries from 2011-2014 at 30 level I and II Pennsylvania trauma centers. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the relationship between ICU admission and mortality, adjusting for patient characteristics, injury characteristics, and physiology. We calculated center-level observed-to-expected ratios for ICU utilization and mortality and evaluated correlations with Spearman's rho. We compared the proportion of patients receiving critical care procedures, such as mechanical ventilation or central line placement between high and low-ICU-utilization centers.

RESULTS

Of 2587 patients with blunt splenic injuries, 63.9% (1654) were admitted to the ICU. Median injury severity score was 17 overall, 13 for non-ICU patients and 17 for ICU patients (P < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression, ICU admission was not significantly associated with mortality. Center-level risk-adjusted ICU admission rates ranged from 17.9%-87.3%. Risk-adjusted mortality rates ranged from 1.2%-9.6%. There was no correlation between observed-to-expected ratios for ICU utilization and mortality (Spearman's rho = -0.2595, P = 0.2103). Proportionately fewer ICU patients received critical care procedures at high-utilization centers than at low-utilization centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk-adjusted ICU utilization rates for splenic trauma varied widely among trauma centers, with no clear relationship to mortality. Standardizing ICU admission criteria could improve resource utilization without increasing mortality.

Antibody response to a T-cell-independent antigen is preserved after splenic artery embolization for trauma

Splenic artery embolization (SAE) is increasingly being used as a nonoperative management strategy for patients with blunt splenic injury following trauma. The aim of this study was to assess the splenic function of patients who were embolized. A clinical study was performed, with splenic function assessed by examining the antibody response to polysaccharide antigens (pneumococcal 23-valent polysaccharide vaccine), B-cell subsets, and the presence of Howell-Jolly bodies (HJB). The data were compared to those obtained from splenectomized patients and healthy controls (HC) who had been included in a previously conducted study. A total of 30 patients were studied: 5 who had proximal SAE, 7 who had distal SAE, 8 who had a splenectomy, and 10 HC. The median vaccine-specific antibody response of the SAE patients (fold increase, 3.97) did not differ significantly from that of the HC (5.29; P = 0.90); however, the median response of the splenectomized patients (2.30) did differ (P = 0.003). In 2 of the proximally embolized patients and none of the distally embolized patients, the ratio of the IgG antibody level postvaccination compared to that prevaccination was <2. There were no significant differences in the absolute numbers of lymphocytes or B-cell subsets between the SAE patients and the HC. HJB were not observed in the SAE patients. The splenic immune function of embolized patients was preserved, and therefore routine vaccination appears not to be indicated. Although the median antibody responses did not differ between the patients who underwent proximal SAE and those who underwent distal SAE, 2 of the 5 proximally embolized patients had insufficient responses to vaccination, whereas none of the distally embolized patients exhibited an insufficient response. Further research should be done to confirm this finding.

Time to intervention in patients with splenic injury in a Dutch level 1 trauma centre

BACKGROUND

Timely intervention in patients with splenic injury is essential, since delay to treatment is associated with an increased risk of mortality. Transcatheter Arterial Embolisation (TAE) is increasingly used as an adjunct to non-operative management. The aim of this study was to report time intervals between admission to the trauma room and start of intervention (TAE or splenic surgery) in patients with splenic injury.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with splenic injury aged ≥ 16 years admitted between January 2006 and January 2012 were included. Data were reported according to haemodynamic status (stable versus unstable). In haemodynamically (HD) unstable patients, transfusion requirement, intervention-related complications and the need for a re-intervention were compared between the TAE and splenic surgery group.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 96 adults of whom 16 were HD unstable on admission. In HD stable patients, median time to intervention was 105 (IQR 77-188) min: 117 (IQR 78-233) min for TAE compared to 95 (IQR 69-188) for splenic surgery (p=0.58). In HD unstable patients, median time to intervention was 58 (IQR 41-99) min: 46 (IQR 27-107) min for TAE compared to 64 (IQR 45-80) min for splenic surgery (p=0.76). The median number of transfused packed red blood cells was 8 (3-22) in HD unstable patients treated with TAE versus 24 (9-55) in the surgery group (p=0.09). No intervention-related complications occurred in the TAE group and one in the splenic surgery group (p=0.88). Two spleen related re-interventions were performed in the TAE group versus 3 in the splenic surgery group (p=0.73).

CONCLUSIONS

Time to intervention did not differ significantly between HD unstable patients treated with TAE and patients treated with splenic surgery. Although no difference was observed with regard to intervention-related complications and the need for a re-intervention, a trend towards lower transfusion requirement was observed in patients treated with TAE compared to patients treated with splenic surgery. We conclude that if 24/7 interventional radiology facilities are available, TAE is not associated with time loss compared to splenic surgery, even in HD unstable patients.

Blunt splenic injury

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the current care of the patient with an injured spleen.

RECENT FINDINGS

The initial care of the patient with splenic injury is dictated by their hemodynamic presentation and the institution's resources. Although most high-grade injuries require splenectomy, up to 38% are successfully managed nonoperatively. Angioembolization has increased splenic salvage with a minimum of complications. In the absence of injuries that mandate longer hospital stays, patients with low-grade injuries are successfully discharged in 1-2 days and high-grade injuries in 3-4 days. Delayed splenic hemorrhage remains a feared complication, but fortunately the 180-day readmission rate for splenectomy is low with the majority of those returning within 8 days of injury.

SUMMARY

Nonoperative management (NOM) is the standard of care for the hemodynamically stable patient with an isolated blunt splenic injury. Splenic salvage can be safely increased, even in higher grade injuries, with the use of angioembolization. Patients managed nonoperatively are successfully discharged as early as 1-2 days for low-grade injuries and as early as 3-4 days for higher grade. Safe management of the patient with blunt splenic injury requires careful selection for NOM, meticulous monitoring and follow-up.

Splenic injuries: factors affecting the outcome of non-operative management

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome of non-operative management (NOM) in patients with splenic injuries and to determine the predictive factors of NOM failure.

METHODS

Two hundred and six patients with splenic injury were admitted between January 2005 and April 2011. Of the 206 patients with splenic injury, 47 patients met the inclusion criteria of NOM. The mechanism of injury, grade of splenic injury, other intra- and extra-abdominal injuries, systolic blood pressure on admission, hemoglobin levels, number of transfusions, Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale score, and hospitalization period were recorded. The patients were divided into two groups: those with NOM and those in whom the failure of NOM led to laparotomy. The patients were monitored for vital signs, abdominal findings, and laboratory data. NOM was abandoned in cases of hemodynamic instability, ongoing bleeding, or development of peritonitis. Independent predictive factors of NOM failure were identified. The patients managed non-operatively were compared with the patients for whom NOM failed.

RESULTS

NOM was successful in 40 of 47 patients. There were differences between the two groups for ISS, hemoglobin levels, need for blood transfusion, and the number of associated extra-abdominal injuries. The grade of splenic injury was determined to be an important and significant independent predictive factor for the success of NOM of splenic injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

The grade of splenic injury is an important and significant independent predictor factor for the success of NOM. NOM is not recommended in patients with high-grade splenic injury.

Splenic trauma: what is new?

Evaluation for splenic injury is an important component of patient assessment after blunt abdominal trauma. Key imaging modalities include ultrasound, particularly for rapid identification of hemoperitoneum, and computed tomography (CT), which permits a more detailed and accurate determination of splenic integrity. Specific findings at contrast-enhanced multidetector CT (MDCT) should prompt the consideration of catheter angiography with arterial embolization as an adjunct to nonsurgical management. This article reviews the roles of imaging in the management of splenic trauma, illustrates the MDCT appearance of various splenic injuries, and discusses imaging-based indications for operative and angiographic intervention.