Direct Peritoneal Resuscitation Alters Leukocyte Infiltration in the Lung After Acute Brain Death

Direct Peritoneal Resuscitation for Trauma

Direct peritoneal resuscitation (DPR) has been found to be a useful adjunct in the management of critically ill trauma patients. DPR is performed following damage control surgery by leaving a surgical drain in the mesentery, placing a temporary abdominal closure, and postoperatively running peritoneal dialysis solution through the surgical drain with removal through the temporary closure. In the original animal models, the peritoneal dialysate infusion was found to augment visceral microcirculatory blood flow reducing the ischemic insult that occurs following hemorrhagic shock. DPR was also found to minimize the aberrant immune response that occurs secondary to shock and contributes to multisystem organ dysfunction. In the subsequent human trials, performing DPR had significant effects in several key categories. Traumatically injured patients who received DPR had a significantly shorter time to definitive fascial closure, had a higher likelihood of achieving primary fascial closure, and experienced fewer abdominal complications. The use of DPR has been further expanded as a useful adjunct for emergency general surgery patients and in the pretransplant care of human cadaver organ donors.

The role of direct peritoneal resuscitation in the treatment of hemorrhagic shock after trauma and in emergency acute care surgery: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Direct peritoneal resuscitation (DPR) has been used to help preserve microcirculation by reversing vasoconstriction and hypoperfusion associated with the pathophysiological process of shock, which can occur despite appropriate intravenous resuscitation. This approach depends on infusing a hyperosmolar solution intraperitoneally via a percutaneous catheter with the tip ending near the pelvis or the root of the mesentery. The abdomen is usually left open with a negative pressure abdominal dressing to continuously evacuate the infused dialysate. Hypertonicity of the solution triggers visceral vasodilation to help maintain blood flow, even during shock, and is also associated with reduced local inflammatory cytokines and other mediators, preservation of endothelial cell function, and mitigation of organ edema and necrosis. It also has a direct effect on liver perfusion and edema, more rapidly corrects electrolyte abnormalities compared to intravenous resuscitation alone, and may requireless intravenous fluid to stabilize blood pressure, all of which shortens the time required to close patients' abdomen.

METHODS

An online query using the search term "direct peritoneal resuscitation" was carried out in PubMed, MEDLINE and SciELO, limited to publications indexed from January 2014 to June 2020. Of the 20 articles returned, full text was able to be obtained for 19. A manual review of included articles' references was resulted in the addition of 1 article, for a total of 20 included articles.

RESULTS

The 20 articles were comprised of 15 animal studies, 4 clinical studies,and 1 expert opinion. The benefits include both local and possibly systemic effects on perfusion, hypoxia, acidosis, and inflammation, and are associated with improved outcomes and reduced complications.

CONCLUSION

DPR shows promise in patients with hemorrhagic shock, septic shock, and other conditions resulting in an open abdomen after damage control laparotomy.

Effects of negative-pressure therapy with and without ropivacaine instillation in the early evolution of severe peritonitis in pigs

PURPOSE

The abdomen is the second most common source of sepsis and secondary peritonitis, which likely lead to death. In the present study, we hypothesized that instillation of local anesthetics into the peritoneum might mitigate the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the open abdomen when combined with negative-pressure therapy (NPT) to treat severe peritonitis.

METHODS

We performed a study in 21 pigs applying a model of sepsis based on ischemia/reperfusion and fecal spread into the peritoneum. The pigs were randomized into three groups, and treated for 6 h as follows: Group A: temporary abdominal closure with ABTHERA™ Open Abdomen Negative-Pressure Therapy; Group B: temporary abdominal closure with ABTHERA™ Open Abdomen Negative-Pressure Therapy plus abdominal instillation with physiological saline solution (PSS); and Group C: temporary abdominal closure with ABTHERA™ Open Abdomen Negative-Pressure Therapy plus peritoneal instillation with a solution of ropivacaine in PPS.

RESULTS

A comparison between the three groups revealed no statistically significant difference for any of the parameters registered (p > 0.05), i.e., intra-abdominal pressure, blood pressure, heart rate, O2 saturation, diuresis, body temperature, and blood levels of interleukin 6 (IL-6), tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα), and c-reactive protein (CRP). In addition, histological studies of the liver, ileum, kidney and lung showed no difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of abdominal instillation (with or without ropivacaine) did not change the effect of 6 h of NPT after sepsis in animals with open abdomen. The absence of adverse effects suggests that longer treatments should be tested.

Impact of initial temporary abdominal closure in damage control surgery: a retrospective analysis

Background

Damage control surgery has revolutionized trauma surgery. Use of damage control surgery allows for resuscitation and reversal of coagulopathy at the risk of loss of abdominal domain and intra-abdominal complications. Temporary abdominal closure is possible with multiple techniques, the choice of which may affect ability to achieve primary fascial closure and further complication.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of all trauma patients requiring damage control laparotomy upon admission to an ACS-verified level one trauma center from 2011 to 2016 was performed. Demographic and clinical data including ability and time to attain primary fascial closure, as well as complication rates, were recorded. The primary outcome measure was ability to achieve primary fascial closure during initial hospitalization.

Results

Two hundred and thirty-nine patients met criteria for inclusion. Primary skin closure (57.7%), ABThera™ VAC system (ABT) (15.1%), Bogota bag (BB) (25.1%), or a modified Barker's vacuum-packing (BVP) (2.1%) were used in the initial laparotomy. Patients receiving skin-only closure had significantly higher rates of primary fascial closure and lower hospital mortality, but also significantly lower mean lactate, base deficit, and requirement for massive transfusion. Between ABT or BB, use of ABT was associated with increased rates of fascial closure. Multivariate regression revealed primary skin closure to be significantly associated with primary fascial closure while BB was associated with failure to achieve fascial closure.

Conclusions

Primary skin closure is a viable option in the initial management of the open abdomen, although these patients demonstrated less injury burden in our study. Use of vacuum-assisted dressings continues to be the preferred method for temporary abdominal closure in damage control surgery for trauma.