Postoperative neuromuscular blocker use is associated with higher primary fascial closure rates after damage control laparotomy

Dexmedetomidine and paralytic exposure after damage control laparotomy: risk factors for delirium? Results from the EAST SLEEP-TIME multicenter trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate factors associated with ICU delirium in patients who underwent damage control laparotomy (DCL), with the hypothesis that benzodiazepines and paralytic infusions would be associated with increased delirium risk. We also sought to evaluate the differences in sedation practices between trauma (T) and non-trauma (NT) patients.

METHODS

We reviewed retrospective data from 15 centers in the EAST SLEEP-TIME registry admitted from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018. We included all adults undergoing DCL, regardless of diagnosis, who had completed daily Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS) and Confusion Assessment Method-ICU (CAM-ICU). We excluded patients younger than 18 years, pregnant women, prisoners and patients who died before the first re-laparotomy. Data collected included age, number of re-laparotomies after DCL, duration of paralytic infusion, duration and type of sedative and opioid infusions as well as daily CAM-ICU and RASS scores to analyze risk factors associated with the proportion of delirium-free/coma-free ICU days during the first 30 days (DF/CF-ICU-30) using multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

A 353 patient subset (73.2% trauma) from the overall 567-patient cohort had complete daily RASS and CAM-ICU data. NT patients were older (58.9 ± 16.0 years vs 40.5 ± 17.0 years [p < 0.001]). Mean DF/CF-ICU-30 days was 73.7 ± 96.4% for the NT and 51.3 ± 38.7% in the T patients (p = 0.030). More T patients were exposed to Midazolam, 41.3% vs 20.3% (p = 0.002). More T patients were exposed to Propofol, 91.0% vs 71.9% (p < 0.001) with longer infusion times in T compared to NT (71.2 ± 85.9 vs 48.9 ± 69.8 h [p = 0.017]). Paralytic infusions were also used more in T compared to NT, 34.8% vs 18.2% (p < 0.001). Using linear regression, dexmedetomidine infusion and paralytic infusions were associated with decreases in DF/CF-ICU-30, (- 2.78 (95%CI [- 5.54, - 0.024], p = 0.040) and (- 7.08 ([- 13.0, - 1.10], p = 0.020) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the relationship between paralytic use and delirium is well-established, the observation that dexmedetomidine exposure is independently associated with increased delirium and coma is novel and bears further study.

Intra-abdominal Hypertension and the Open Abdomen: Nursing Guidelines From the Abdominal Compartment Society

Intra-abdominal hypertension has been identified as an independent risk factor for death in critically ill patients. Known risk factors for intra-abdominal hypertension indicate that intra-abdominal pressures should be measured and monitored. The Abdominal Compartment Society has identified medical and surgical interventions to relieve intra-abdominal hypertension or to manage the open abdomen if abdominal compartment syndrome occurs. The purpose of this article is to describe assessments and interventions for managing intra-abdominal hypertension and open abdomen that are within the scope of practice for direct-care nurses. These guidelines provide direction to critical care nurses caring for these patients.

Effect of Neuromuscular Blocking Agents on Sedation Requirements in Trauma Patients with an Open Abdomen

The appropriate level of sedation in patients with an open abdomen following damage control laparotomy (DCL) is debated. Chemical paralysis with neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) has been used to decrease time to abdominal closure. We sought to evaluate the effect of NMBA use on sedation requirements in patients with an open abdomen and to determine the effect of sedation on patient outcomes. A retrospective cohort study was conducted at an American College of Surgeons' verified level 1 trauma center. Adult trauma patients who underwent DCL between 2009 and 2015 were included. Patients with an intensive care unit length of stay of less than 48 hours and those who died before abdominal closure were excluded. The NMBA+ group received continuous NMBA within 24 hours of DCL; the NMBA- group did not. The primary outcome was cumulative sedation dose during the 7 days following DCL. Secondary outcomes included Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score, mechanical ventilation-free days, and delirium-coma-free days. Delirium-coma-free days were analyzed with linear regression. A total of 222 patients were included (NMBA+ 125; NMBA- 97). Demographics were similar between groups including age, Injury Severity Score, and mechanism of injury. The median time to closure in the overall cohort was 2 days (interquartile range [IQR] 1-2 days). Propofol and fentanyl were the primary sedatives used. The NMBA+ group received higher cumulative doses of propofol (NMBA+ 5405 mg, IQR 3103-10,573 mg; NMBA- 3601 mg, IQR 1605-6887 mg; p=0.007), but not of fentanyl. Time to abdominal closure, but not NMBA use, was associated with a higher cumulative propofol dose on multivariate analysis. The NMBA+ group had significantly lower RASS scores on the first 3 days following DCL. Mechanical ventilation-free days (NMBA+ 20 days vs NMBA- 18 days, p=0.960) and delirium-coma-free days (NMBA+ 18 days vs NMBA- 18 days, p=0.610) were similar between the groups. On linear regression, cumulative propofol dose was associated with fewer delirium-coma-free days (β-coefficient -0.007, 95% confidence interval -0.015 to -0.003). In trauma patients managed with DCL, higher cumulative sedative doses were administered in patients who received adjunctive NMBA, although NMBA therapy was not associated with a higher cumulative propofol dose on multivariate analysis. Consideration must be given to the potential effect of sedation on delirium and awakening following DCL.

Open Abdomen in Trauma and Critical Care

The open abdomen technique and temporary abdominal closure after damage control surgery is fast becoming the standard of care for managing intra-abdominal bleeding and infectious or ischemic processes in critically ill patients. Expansion of this technique has evolved from damage control surgery in severely injured trauma patients to use in patients with abdominal compartment syndrome due to acute pancreatitis and other disorders. Subsequent therapies after use of the open abdomen technique and temporary abdominal closure are resuscitation in the intensive care unit and planned reoperation to manage the underlying cause of bleeding, infection, or ischemia. Determining the need for this potentially lifesaving intervention and managing the wound after the open abdomen has been created are all within the realm of critical care nurses. Case studies illustrate the implementation of the open abdomen technique and patient management strategies.

Management of the Open Abdomen

Management of the abdominal catastrophe requires a multidisciplinary approach. The plastic surgeon is a key member of the surgical team assisting in the creation of a durable, functional anatomic abdominal wall reconstruction. Plastic surgeons must be familiar with the concepts and pathophysiology related to the open abdomen, techniques for temporary abdominal closure, and when such techniques are appropriate to implement. In this article, the authors provide a review of the open abdomen concept, which practicing plastic surgeons and trainees may find helpful if faced with this clinical scenario.

Intra-Abdominal Hypertension and Abdominal Compartment Syndrome after Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: Quaternary Syndromes?

Background and Aims:

Reconstruction with reconstitution of the container function of the abdominal compartment is increasingly being performed in patients with massive ventral hernia previously deemed inoperable. This situation places patients at great risk of severe intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome if organ failure ensues. Intra-abdominal hypertension and especially abdominal compartment syndrome may be devastating systemic complications with systematic and progressive organ failure and death. We thus reviewed the pathophysiology and reported clinical experiences with abnormalities of intra-abdominal pressure in the context of abdominal wall reconstruction.

Material and Methods:

Bibliographic databases (1950–2015), websites, textbooks, and the bibliographies of previously recovered articles for reports or data relating to intra-abdominal pressure, intra-abdominal hypertension, and the abdominal compartment syndrome in relation to ventral, incisional, or abdominal hernia repair or abdominal wall reconstruction.

Results:

Surgeons should thus consider and carefully measure intra-abdominal pressure and its resultant effects on respiratory parameters and function during abdominal wall reconstruction. The intra-abdominal pressure post-operatively will be a result of the new intra-peritoneal volume and the abdominal wall compliance. Strategies surgeons may utilize to ameliorate intra-abdominal pressure rise after abdominal wall reconstruction including temporizing paralysis of the musculature either temporarily or semi-permanently, pre-operative progressive pneumoperitoneum, permanently removing visceral contents, or surgically releasing the musculature to increase the abdominal container volume. In patients without complicating shock and inflammation, and in whom the abdominal wall anatomy has been so functionally adapted to maximize compliance, intra-abdominal hypertension may be transient and tolerable.

Conclusions:

Intra-abdominal hypertension/abdominal compartment syndrome in the specific setting of abdominal wall reconstruction without other complication may be considered as a quaternary situation considering the classification nomenclature of the Abdominal Compartment Society. Greater awareness of intra-abdominal pressure in abdominal wall reconstruction is required and ongoing study of these concerns is required.

Comparison of Outcomes between Early Fascial Closure and Delayed Abdominal Closure in Patients with Open Abdomen: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Up to the present, the optimal time to close an open abdomen remains controversial. This study was designed to evaluate whether early fascial abdominal closure had advantages over delayed approach for open abdomen populations. Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched until April 2013. Search terms included “open abdomen,” “abdominal compartment syndrome,” “laparostomy,” “celiotomy,” “abdominal closure,” “primary,” “delayed,” “permanent,” “fascial closure,” and “definitive closure.” Open abdomen was defined as “fail to close abdominal fascia after a laparotomy.” Mortality, complications, and length of stay were compared between early and delayed fascial closure. In total, 3125 patients were included for final analysis, and 1942 (62%) patients successfully achieved early fascial closure. Vacuum assisted fascial closure had no impact on pooled fascial closure rate. Compared with delayed abdominal closure, early fascial closure significantly reduced mortality (12.3% versus 24.8%, RR, 0.53, P < 0.0001) and complication incidence (RR, 0.68, P < 0.0001). The mean interval from open abdomen to definitive closure ranged from 2.2 to 14.6 days in early fascial closure groups, but from 32.5 to 300 days in delayed closure groups. This study confirmed clinical advantages of early fascial closure over delayed approach in treatment of patients with open abdomen.

Planned re-laparotomy and the need for optimization of physiology and immunology

Planned re-laparotomy or damage control laparotomy (DCL), first described by Dr. Harlan Stone in 1983, has become a widely utilized technique in a broad range of patients and operative situations. Studies have validated the use of DCL by demonstrating decreased mortality and morbidity in trauma, general surgery and abdominal vascular catastrophes. Indications for planned re-laparotomy include severe physiologic derangements, coagulopathy, concern for bowel ischemia, and abdominal compartment syndrome. The immunology of DCL patients is not well described in humans, but promising animal studies suggest a benefit from the open abdomen (OA) and several human trials on this subject are currently underway. Optimal critical care of patients with OA's, including sedation, paralysis, nutrition, antimicrobial and fluid management strategies have been associated with improved closure rates and recovery.

Abdominal damage control surgery and reconstruction: world society of emergency surgery position paper

Damage control laparotomy was first described by Dr. Harlan Stone in 1983 when he suggested that patients with severe trauma should have their primary procedures abbreviated when coagulopathy was encountered. He recommended temporizing patients with abdominal packing and temporary closure to allow restoration of normal physiology prior to returning to the operating room for definitive repair. The term damage control in the trauma setting was coined by Rotondo et al., in 1993. Studies in subsequent years have validated this technique by demonstrating decreased mortality and immediate post-operative complications. The indications for damage control laparotomy have evolved to encompass abdominal compartment syndrome, abdominal sepsis, vascular and acute care surgery cases. The perioperative critical care provided to these patients, including sedation, paralysis, nutrition, and fluid management strategies may improve closure rates and recovery. In the rare cases of inability to primarily close the abdomen, there are a number of reconstructive strategies that may be used in the acute and chronic phases of abdominal closure.

Damage-control laparotomy in nontrauma patients: review of indications and outcomes

BACKGROUND

The principle of damage-control laparotomy (DCL) in trauma is well established. The DCL concept can be applied in emergency general surgery when an abbreviated laparotomy is performed at the initial stage. Subsequent definitive management and abdominal closure are achieved when the patient is stabilized. In this study, we report our experience with DCL in acute general surgical nontrauma patients.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all nontrauma patients who underwent DCL at Auckland City Hospital from January 2008 to December 2010. Data including indications and outcome were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

Forty-two nontrauma patients underwent DCL in the 3-year period. The median age was 66 years. There were 22 males and 20 females. The most common primary indications for DCL were bowel ischemia (13 patients), bleeding (13 patients), and peritonitis (10 patients). Majority of patients had an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 3 or 4. Overall, 24 patients (57%) underwent closure of the fascia within 7 days, 7 patients were closed after more than 7 days, and 11 patients could not undergo primary closure at all. The main complications after DCL were sepsis (14 patients) and intra-abdominal collections (10 patients). There were significantly fewer postoperative complications in patients undergoing early closure. The medium length of stay in intensive care as well as in hospital was significantly less in the early closure group. However, postoperative respiratory failure was more common in those with early closure (5 vs. 0). The mortality rate overall was 19%, with no significant difference regarding timing of abdominal closure.

CONCLUSION

The DCL principle is often applied to the critically ill surgical patients in the nontrauma setting. This group of critical surgical patients has a high morbidity and mortality. However, early abdominal closure should be performed where possible to prevent complications. It is unclear whether patients with early closure were going to have a better outcome regardless, and prospective studies are needed to address.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level V.

Surgical strategies for management of the open abdomen

Since the mid-1990s the surgical community has seen a surge in the prevalence of open abdomens (OAs) reported in the surgical literature and in clinical practice. The OA has proven to be effective in decreasing mortality and immediate postoperative complications; however, it may come at the cost of delayed morbidity and the need for further surgical procedures. Indications for leaving the abdomen open have broadened to include damage control surgery, abdominal compartment syndrome, and abdominal sepsis. The surgical options for management of the OA are now more diverse and sophisticated, but there is a lack of prospective randomized controlled trials demonstrating the superiority of any particular method. Additionally, critical care strategies for optimization of the patient with an OA are still being developed. Review of the literature suggests a bimodal distribution of primary closure rates, with early closure dependent on postoperative intensive care management and delayed closure more affected by the choice of the temporary abdominal closure technique. Invariably, a small fraction of patients requiring OA management fail to have primary fascial closure and require some form of biologic fascial bridge with delayed ventral hernia repair in the future.

Cutting-edge advances in the medical management of obstetrical hemorrhage

Hemorrhagic shock is the most common form of shock encountered in obstetric practice. Interventions that may limit transfusion requirements include normovolemic hemodilution, use of recombinant activated factor VII, selective embolization of pelvic vessels by interventional radiology, and the use of the cell saver intraoperatively. Current understanding of the mechanisms of acute coagulopathy calls into question the current transfusion guidelines, leading to a tendency to apply massive transfusion protocols based on hemostatic resuscitation despite lack of prospective data.