Risk of pulmonary embolism with repair or ligation of major venous injury following penetrating trauma

Review article: History of venous trauma

ABSTRACT

This is a literature review on the history of venous trauma since the 1800s, especially that to the common femoral, femoral and popliteal veins, with focus on the early 1900s, World War I, World War II, Korean War, Vietnam War, and then civilian and military reviews (1960-2020). In the latter two groups, tables were used to summarize the following: incidence of venous repair versus ligation, management of popliteal venous injuries, patency of venous repairs when assessed <30 days from operation, patency of venous repairs when assessed >30 days from operation, clinical assessment (edema or not) after ligation versus repair, incidence of deep venous thrombosis after ligation versus repair, and incidence of pulmonary embolism after ligation versus repair.There is a lack of the following in the literature on the management of venous injuries over the past 80 years: standard definition of magnitude of venous injury in operative reports, accepted indications for venous repair, standard postoperative management, and timing and mode of early and later postoperative assessment.Multiple factors have entered into the decision on venous ligation versus repair after trauma for the past 60 years, but a surgeon's training and local management protocols have the most influence in both civilian and military centers. Ligation of venous injuries, particularly those in the lower extremities, is well tolerated in civilian trauma, although there is the usual lack of short- and long-term follow-up as noted in many of the articles reviewed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Review article, levels IV and V.

Viscoelastic monitoring in trauma resuscitation

BACKGROUND

Traumatic injury results in both physical and physiologic insult. Successful care of the trauma patient depends upon timely correction of both physical and biochemical injury. Trauma-induced coagulopathy is a derangement of hemostasis and thrombosis that develops rapidly and can be fatal if not corrected. Viscoelastic monitoring (VEM) assays have been developed to provide rapid, accurate, and relatively comprehensive depictions of an individual's coagulation profile. VEM are increasingly being integrated into trauma resuscitation guidelines to provide dynamic and individualized guidance to correct coagulopathy.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We performed a narrative review of the search terms viscoelastic, thromboelastography, thromboelastometry, TEG, ROTEM, trauma, injury, resuscitation, and coagulopathy using PubMed. Particular focus was directed to articles describing algorithms for management of traumatic coagulopathy based on VEM assay parameters.

RESULTS

Our search identified 16 papers with VEM-guided resuscitation strategies in adult patients based on TEG, 12 such protocols in adults based on ROTEM, 1 protocol for children based on TEG, and 2 protocols for children based on ROTEM.

CONCLUSIONS

This review presents evidence to support VEM use to detect traumatic coagulopathy, discusses the role of VEM in trauma resuscitation, provides a summary of proposed treatment algorithms, and discusses pending questions in the field.

Venous ligation versus venous repair: does the procedure impact venous thromboembolism risk?

Background

Traumatic lower extremity venous injuries are most commonly managed with either a vein ligation or repair procedure. Venous injuries are associated with an increased risk of developing venous thromboembolisms (VTE), but little is understood with regard to how specific surgical treatments may impact the risk of developing either a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or a pulmonary embolism (PE). In this study of lower extremity venous injuries, we hypothesized that venous ligation would be associated with an increased risk of DVT but a lower risk of PE when compared with venous repair.

Methods

Patients were identified from the National Trauma Data Bank (2008 to 2014) with at least one iliac, femoral, popliteal, or tibial venous injury and who received either a vein ligation or repair. The patients were then compared based on the type of procedure and the location of the injury to assess the risk of DVT and PE between the groups.

Results

A total of 1214 patients were identified. There was no difference between patients who received a vein ligation versus a repair with respect to age, injury severity score, or initial systolic blood pressure. There was no difference in the odds of developing either a DVT or PE between patients who were treated with vein ligation versus repair. There was also no difference in VTE rates when stratified by the location of the injury.

Conclusions

In individuals with lower extremity venous injuries, there is no difference in the rate of DVT or PE complications when comparing venous repair and ligation procedures. The role of anticoagulation remains to be elucidated following operative treatment.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic/Care Management, Level IV.

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.

Factors Contributing to Morbidity after Combined Arterial and Venous Lower Extremity Trauma

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of management of venous injury on clinical outcomes in patients with combined lower extremity arterial and venous trauma. Patients with common and external iliac, common and superficial femoral, and popliteal artery injuries were identified. Patients who underwent vein repair and those who received vein ligation were compared. The analysis was repeated for those patients who required secondary intervention for their arterial injury and those who did not require secondary intervention. Seventy patients were identified with both arterial and venous injuries: 40 underwent vein ligation and 30 received vein repair. There was no difference in ischemic time between patients undergoing vein repair compared with ligation. Vein ligation did not produce a higher incidence of muscle debridement (10% vs 15%, P = 0.72), necessity for secondary intervention (10% vs 7.5%, P = 0.99), or amputation (3.3% vs 7.5%, P = 0.63). Patients who required secondary intervention had a greater degree of shock on presentation (packed red blood cells (PRBC), 13 units vs 6 units, P = 0.02) and were more likely to require muscle debridement (50% vs 9%, P = 0.02) and amputation (33% vs 3%, P = 0.03). Vein ligation did not impact muscle ischemia or success of arterial repair in patients with combined venous and arterial trauma in the lower extremities. Patient morbidity after extremity vascular trauma is most related to degree of shock.

Venous thromboembolism after major venous injuries: Competing priorities

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) after major vascular injury (MVI) is particularly challenging because the competing risk of thrombosis and embolization after direct vessel injury must be balanced with risk of bleeding after surgical repair. We hypothesized that venous injuries, repair type, and intraoperative anticoagulation would influence VTE formation after MVI.

METHODS

A multi-institution, retrospective cohort study of consecutive MVI patients was conducted at three urban, Level I centers (2005-2013). Patients with MVI of the neck, torso, or proximal extremities (to elbows/knees) were included. Our primary study endpoint was the development of VTE (DVT or pulmonary embolism [PE]).

RESULTS

The 435 major vascular injury patients were primarily young (27 years) men (89%) with penetrating (84%) injuries. When patients with (n = 108) and without (n = 327) VTE were compared, we observed no difference in age, mechanism, extremity injury, tourniquet use, orthopedic and spine injuries, damage control, local heparinized saline, or vascular surgery consultation (all p > 0.05). VTE patients had greater Injury Severity Score (ISS) (17 vs. 12), shock indices (1 vs. 0.9), and more torso (58% vs. 35%) and venous (73% vs. 48%) injuries, but less often received systemic intraoperative anticoagulation (39% vs. 53%) or postoperative enoxaparin (47% vs. 61%) prophylaxis (all p < 0.05). After controlling for ISS, hemodynamics, injured vessel, intraoperative anticoagulation, and postoperative prophylaxis, multivariable analysis revealed venous injury was independently predictive of VTE (odds ratio, 2.7; p = 0.002). Multivariable analysis of the venous injuries subset (n = 237) then determined that only delay in starting VTE chemoprophylaxis (odds ratio, 1.3/day; p = 0.013) independently predicted VTE after controlling for ISS, hemodynamics, injured vessel, surgical subspecialty, intraoperative anticoagulation, and postoperative prophylaxis. Overall, 3.4% of venous injury patients developed PE, but PE rates were not related to their operative management (p = 0.72).

CONCLUSION

Patients with major venous injuries are at high risk for VTE, regardless of intraoperative management. Our results support the immediate initiation of postoperative chemoprophylaxis in patients with major venous injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

A simplified stratification system for venous thromboembolism risk in severely injured trauma patients

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to re-evaluate and simplify the Greenfield risk assessment profile (RAP) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in trauma using information readily available at the bedside.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 1233 consecutive admissions to the trauma intensive care unit from August 2011-January 2015. Univariate analyses were performed to determine which RAP risk factors were significant contributors to VTE. Multivariable logistic regression was used to develop models for risk stratification. All results were considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

The study population was as follows: age 44 ± 19, 75% male, 72% blunt, injury severity score 21 ± 13, RAP score 9 ± 5, and 8% mortality. Groups were separated into +VTE (n = 104) and -VTE (n = 1129). They were similar in age, gender, mechanism, and mortality, but injury severity and RAP scores were higher in the +VTE group (all P < 0.0001). The +VTE group had more transfusions and longer time to prophylaxis (all P < 0.05). Receiving four or more transfusions in the first 24 h (odds ratio [OR], 2.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.64-4.13), Glasgow coma score <8 for >4 h (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.28-3.54), pelvic fracture (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.44-3.57), age 40-59 y (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.10-2.63), and >2-h operation (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.14-2.85) predicted VTE with an area under the receiver operator curve of 0.729, which was comparable with 0.740 for the RAP score alone.

CONCLUSIONS

VTE risk in trauma can be easily assessed using only five risk factors, which are all readily available at the bedside (transfusion, Glasgow coma scale, pelvic fracture, prolonged operation, and age). This simplified model provides similar predictive ability to the more complicated RAP score. Prospective validation of a simplified risk assessment score is warranted.