Systemic intraoperative anticoagulation during arterial injury repair: Implications for patency and bleeding

Protocolized approach saves the limb in peripheral arterial injury: A decade experience

PURPOSE

Outcomes of peripheral arterial injury (PAI) depend on various factors, such as warm ischemia time and concomitant injuries. Suboptimal prehospital care may lead to delayed presentation, and a lack of dedicated trauma system may lead to poorer outcome. Also, there are few reports of these outcomes. The aim of this study was to review our experience of PAI management for more than a decade, and identify the predictors of limb loss in these patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained database of trauma admissions at a level I trauma center from January 2008 to December 2019. Patients with acute upper limb arterial injuries or lower limb arterial injuries at or above the level of popliteal artery were included. Association of limb loss with ischemia time, mechanism of injury and concomitant injuries was studied using multiple logistic regressions. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA version 15.0 (Stata Corp LLC, Texas).

RESULTS

Out of 716 patients with PAI, the majority (92%) were young males. Blunt trauma was the most common mechanism of injury. Median ischemia time was 4 h (interquartile range 2-7 h). Brachial artery (28%) was the most common injured vessel followed by popliteal artery (18%) and femoral artery (17%). Limb salvage rate was 78%. Out of them, 158 (22%) patients needed amputation, and 53 (7%) had undergone primary amputation. The majority (86%) of patients who required primary or secondary amputations had blunt trauma. On multivariate analysis, blunt trauma, ischemia time more than 6 h and concomitant venous, skeletal, and soft tissue injuries were associated with higher odds of amputation.

CONCLUSION

Over all limb salvage rates was 78% in our series. Blunt mechanism of injury and associated skeletal and soft tissue injury, ischemia time more than 6 h portend a poor prognosis. Injury prevention, robust prehospital care, and rapid referral to specialized trauma center are few efficient measures, which can decrease the morbidity associated with vascular injury.

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.

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.