Damage control laparotomy trial: design, rationale and implementation of a randomized controlled trial

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Severe Abdominal Trauma: A Secondary Analysis of the Damage Control Laparotomy Trial

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following abdominal trauma. We hypothesized that patients undergoing definitive laparotomy (DEF) would have better PROs compared to those treated with damage control laparotomy (DCL).

METHODS

The DCL Trial randomized DEF versus DCL in abdominal trauma. PROs were measured using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D) questionnaire at discharge and six months postdischarge (1 = perfect health, 0 = death, and <0 = worse than death) and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist-Civilian. Unadjusted Bayesian analysis with a neutral prior was used to assess the posterior probability of achieving minimal clinically important difference.

RESULTS

Of 39 randomized patients (21 DEF versus 18 DCL), 8 patients died (7 DEF versus 1 DCL). Of those who survived, 28 completed the EQ-5D at discharge (12 DEF versus 16 DCL) and 25 at 6 mo (12 DEF versus 13 DCL). Most patients were male (79%) with a median age of 30 (interquartile range (IQR) 21-42), suffered blunt injury (56%), and were severely injured (median injury severity score 33, IQR 21 - 42). Median EQ-5D value at discharge was 0.20 (IQR 0.06 - 0.52) DEF versus 0.31 (IQR -0.03 - 0.43) DCL, and at six months 0.51 (IQR 0.30 - 0.74) DEF versus 0.50 (IQR 0.28 - 0.84) DCL. The posterior probability of minimal clinically important difference DEF versus DCL at discharge and six months was 16% and 23%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Functional deficits for trauma patients persist beyond the acute setting regardless of laparotomy status. These deficits warrant longitudinal studies to better inform patients on recovery expectations.

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial

BACKGROUND

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study.

METHODS

The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer.

DISCUSSION

OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of "damage control"; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Institutes of Health ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ).

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial

BACKGROUND

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study.

METHODS

The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer.

DISCUSSION

OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of "damage control"; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Institutes of Health ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ).

Variation in use of damage control laparotomy for trauma by trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia

Background

It is unknown how frequently damage control (DC) laparotomy is used across trauma centers in different countries. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia to study variations in use of the procedure and predictors of more frequent use of DC laparotomy.

Methods

A self-administered, electronic, cross-sectional survey of trauma centers in the United States, Canada, and Australasia was conducted. The survey collected information about trauma center and program characteristics. It also asked how often the trauma program director estimated DC laparotomy was performed on injured patients at that center on average over the last year. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of a higher reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy.

Results

Of the 366 potentially eligible trauma centers sent the survey, 199 (51.8%) trauma program directors or leaders responded [United States = 156 (78.4%), Canada = 26 (13.1%), and Australasia = 17 (8.5%)]. The reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy was highly variable across trauma centers. DC laparotomy was used more frequently in level-1 than level-2 or -3 trauma centers. Further, high-volume level-1 centers used DC laparotomy significantly more often than lower volume level-1 centers (p = 0.02). Nearly half (48.4%) of high-volume volume level-1 trauma centers reported using the procedure at least once weekly. Significant adjusted predictors of more frequent use of DC laparotomy included country of origin [odds ratio (OR) for the United States vs. Canada = 7.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39–40.27], level-1 verification status (OR = 6.02; 95% CI 2.01–18.06), and the assessment of a higher number of severely injured (Injury Severity Scale score > 15) patients (OR per-100 patients = 1.62; 95% CI 1.20–2.18) and patients with penetrating injuries (OR per-5% increase = 1.27; 95% CI 1.01–1.58) in the last year.

Conclusions

The reported frequency of use of DC laparotomy was highly variable across trauma centers. Those centers that most need to evaluate the benefit-to-risk ratio of using DC laparotomy in different scenarios may include high-volume, level-1 trauma centers, particularly those that often manage penetrating injuries.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13017-021-00396-7.

Damage control laparotomy in trauma: a pilot randomized controlled trial. The DCL trial

Background

Although widely used in treating severe abdominal trauma, damage control laparotomy (DCL) has not been assessed in any randomized controlled trial. We conducted a pilot trial among patients for whom our surgeons had equipoise and hypothesized that definitive laparotomy (DEF) would reduce major abdominal complications (MAC) or death within 30 days compared with DCL.

Methods

Eligible patients undergoing emergency laparotomy were randomized during surgery to DCL or DEF from July 2016 to May 2019. The primary outcome was MAC or death within 30 days. Prespecified frequentist and Bayesian analyses were performed.

Results

Of 489 eligible patients, 39 patients were randomized (DCL 18, DEF 21) and included. Groups were similar in demographics and mechanism of injury. The DEF group had a higher Injury Severity Score (DEF median 34 (IQR 20, 43) vs DCL 29 (IQR 22, 41)) and received more prerandomization blood products (DEF median red blood cells 8 units (IQR 6, 11) vs DCL 6 units (IQR 2, 11)). In unadjusted analyses, the DEF group had more MAC or death within 30 days (1.71, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.63, p=0.159) due to more deaths within 30 days (DEF 33% vs DCL 0%, p=0.010). Adjustment for Injury Severity Score and prerandomization blood products reduced the risk ratio for MAC or death within 30 days to 1.54 (95% CI 0.71 to 3.32, p=0.274). The Bayesian probability that DEF increased MAC or death within 30 days was 85% in unadjusted analyses and 66% in adjusted analyses.

Conclusion

The findings of our single center pilot trial were inconclusive. Outcomes were not worse with DCL and, in fact, may have been better. A randomized clinical trial of DCL is feasible and a larger, multicenter trial is needed to compare DCL and DEF for patients with severe abdominal trauma.

Level of evidence

Level II.

Readmission With Major Abdominal Complications After Penetrating Abdominal Trauma

BACKGROUND

Despite improvements in operative techniques, major abdominal complications (MACs) continue to occur after penetrating abdominal trauma (PAT). This study aimed to evaluate the burden of MAC after PAT.

METHODS

The (2012-2015) National Readmission Database was queried for all adult (age ≥18 y) trauma patients with penetrating injuries who underwent exploratory laparotomy and were readmitted within 6 mo of index hospitalization discharge. Patients were stratified by firearm injuries (FIs) and stab injuries (SIs). Primary outcomes were rates of MAC: intra-abdominal abscesses (IAAs), superficial surgical site infection (SSI), and fascial dehiscence within 6 mo after discharge. Secondary outcomes were both nonabdominal complications and mortality, postdischarge, and 6-mo readmission. Regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 4473 patients (FI, 2326; SI, 2147) were included in the study; the mean age was 32 ± 14 y, the Injury Severity Score was 19 (15-25), and 23% underwent damage control laparotomy (DCL). The rate of MAC within 6 mo was 22% (IAA 19%, SSI 7%, and fascial dehiscence 4%). Patients with FIs had a higher rate of IAA (27% versus 10%; P < 0.01), SSI (11% versus 3%; P < 0.01), fascial dehiscence (5% versus 3%; P = 0.03), nonabdominal complications (54% versus 24%; P < 0.01), and postdischarge mortality (8% versus 6%; P < 0.01) compared with patients with SIs . On regression analysis, DCL (P < 0.01), large bowel perforation (P < 0.01), biliary-pancreatic injury (P < 0.01), hepatic injury (P < 0.01), and blood transfusion (P = 0.02) were predictors of MAC.

CONCLUSIONS

MAC developed in one in five patients after PAT. FIs have a higher potential for hollow viscus injury and peritoneal contamination, and are more predictive of MAC and nonabdominal complications, especially after DCL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III Prognostic.

Dealing with the Sick Rural Surgery Patient in Need of Transfer

Care for rural and urban surgical patients is increasingly more complex due to advancing knowledge and technology. Interhospital transfers occur in approximately 10% of index encounters at rural hospitals secondary to mismatch of patient needs and local resources. Due to the recent expansion of air transport to rural areas, distance and geography are less of a barrier. The interhospital transfer process is understudied and far from standardized. Interhospital transfer status is associated with increase in mortality, complications, length of stay, and costs. The cost, price to patients, and safety of air ambulance transports cannot be ignored.

Better understanding the utilization of damage control laparotomy: A multi-institutional quality improvement project

BACKGROUND

Rates of damage control laparotomy (DCL) vary widely and consensus on appropriate indications does not exist. The purposes of this multicenter quality improvement (QI) project were to decrease the use of DCL and to identify indications where consensus exists.

METHODS

In 2016, six US Level I trauma centers performed a yearlong, QI project utilizing a single QI tool: audit and feedback. Each emergent trauma laparotomy was prospectively reviewed. Damage control laparotomy cases were adjudicated based on the majority vote of faculty members as being appropriate or potentially, in retrospect, safe for definitive laparotomy. The rate of DCL for 2 years prior (2014 and 2015) was retrospectively collected and used as a control. To account for secular trends of DCL, interrupted time series was used to effectiveness of the QI interventions.

RESULTS

Eight hundred seventy-two emergent laparotomies were performed: 73% definitive laparotomies, 24% DCLs, and 3% intraoperative deaths. Of the 209 DCLs, 162 (78%) were voted appropriate, and 47 (22%) were voted to have been potentially safe for definitive laparotomy. Rates of DCL ranged from 16% to 34%. Common indications for DCL for which consensus existed were packing (103/115 [90%] appropriate) and hemodynamic instability (33/40 [83%] appropriate). The only common indication for which primary closure at the initial laparotomy could have been safely performed was avoiding a planned second look (16/32 [50%] appropriate).

CONCLUSION

A single faceted QI intervention failed to decrease the rate of DCL at six US Level I trauma centers. However, opportunities for improvement in safely decreasing the rate of DCL were present. Second look laparotomy appears to lack consensus as an indication for DCL and may represent a target to decrease the rate of DCL after injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiological study with one negative criterion, level III.

Impact of Social Media on Community Consultation in Exception From Informed Consent Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Exception from informed consent (EFIC) allows clinician scientists to perform much needed emergency research. Obtaining this exception, however, requires many meetings with community groups for consultation, which can make the process time-consuming and expensive. We aim to determine the impact of using social media in lieu of some community meetings in an effort to obtain an EFIC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An economic analysis of four randomized clinical trials was performed. Costs were conservatively estimated using personnel costs, social media costs, and adjusted to 2016 US dollars. People were considered reached if they attended a community meeting or were directed to the study website by social media and spent ≥1 min.

RESULTS

The Early Whole Blood study required 14 meetings, reached 272 people, and cost $8260 ($30/person reached). The Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios study required 14 meetings, reached 260 people, and cost $7479 overall ($29/person reached). The Prehospital Tranexamic Acid Use for Traumatic Brain Injury study required 12 meetings, reached 198 people, and cost $6340 ($32/person reached). Only the damage control laparotomy trial utilized social media in lieu of some community meetings. The damage control laparotomy trial required six meetings at which 137 people were reached. The $1000 social media campaign reached 229 people. The cost was $3977 overall and $11/person reached.

CONCLUSIONS

Including a social media campaign during the EFIC process increased the number of potential patients reached and reduced total and per person costs reached costs. Obtaining an EFIC for future emergency clinical trials may be facilitated by the inclusion of a social media campaign.

Closed Or Open after Source Control Laparotomy for Severe Complicated Intra-Abdominal Sepsis (the COOL trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. Principles of treatment include early antibiotic administration and operative source control. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with active negative peritoneal pressure therapy (ANPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and ameliorate the systemic damage from SCIAS. Although there is now a biologic rationale for such an intervention as well as non-standardized and erratic clinical utilization, this remains a novel therapy with potential side effects and clinical equipoise.

Methods

The Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) study will constitute a prospective randomized controlled trial that will randomly allocate eligible surgical patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or use of the OA with application of an ANPTT dressing. Patients will be eligible if they have free uncontained intra-peritoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR a Predisposition-Infection-Response-Organ Dysfunction Score ≥ 3 or a World-Society-of-Emergency-Surgery-Sepsis-Severity-Score ≥ 8. The primary outcome will be 90-day survival. Secondary outcomes will be logistical, physiologic, safety, bio-mediators, microbiological, quality of life, and health-care costs. Secondary outcomes will include days free of ICU, ventilation, renal replacement therapy, and hospital at 30 days from the index laparotomy. Physiologic secondary outcomes will include changes in intensive care unit illness severity scores after laparotomy. Bio-mediator outcomes for participating centers will involve measurement of interleukin (IL)-6 and IL-10, procalcitonin, activated protein C (APC), high-mobility group box protein-1, complement factors, and mitochondrial DNA. Economic outcomes will comprise standard costing for utilization of health-care resources.

Discussion

Although facial closure after SCIAS is considered the current standard of care, many reports are suggesting that OA management may improve outcomes in these patients. This trial will be powered to demonstrate a mortality difference in this highly lethal and morbid condition to ensure critically ill patients are receiving the best care possible and not being harmed by inappropriate therapies based on opinion only.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03163095.