Russell N, Vieira EJ, Freeman LR, Eastman AL, Khan U, Schluterman HM, Beakes C, Kirkpatrick S, Grant JL. Diagnostic and therapeutic considerations in cases of civilian intravascular ballistic embolism: a review of case reports.
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open 2024;
9:e001390. [PMID:
39005707 PMCID:
PMC11243208 DOI:
10.1136/tsaco-2024-001390]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/29/2024] [Accepted: 06/20/2024] [Indexed: 07/16/2024] Open
Abstract
Background
Ballistic embolism (BE) is a rare complication of firearm injuries notoriously associated with a vexing clinical picture in the trauma bay. Unless considered early, the associated confusion can lead to needless delay in the management of the patient with a gunshot wound. Despite this known entity, there is a relative paucity of high-grade evidence regarding complications, management, and follow-up in these patients.
Methods
An electronic database literature search was conducted to identify cases of acute intravascular BE in pediatric and adult civilians occurring during index hospitalization, filtered to publications during the past 10 years. Exclusion criteria included non-vascular embolization, injuries occurring in the military setting, and delayed migration defined as occurring after discharge from the index hospitalization.
Results
A total of 136 cases were analyzed. Nearly all cases of BE occurred within 48 hours of presentation. Compared with venous emboli, arterial emboli were significantly more likely to be symptomatic (71% vs. 7%, p<0.001), and 43% of patients developed symptoms attributable to BE in the trauma bay. In addition, arterial emboli were significantly less likely to be managed non-invasively (19% vs. 49%, p<0.001). Open retrieval was significantly more likely to be successful compared with endovascular attempts (91% vs. 29%, p<0.001). Patients with arterial emboli were more likely to receive follow-up (52% vs. 39%) and any attempt at retrieval during the hospitalization was significantly associated with outpatient follow-up (p=0.034). All but one patient remained stable or had clinically improved symptoms after discharge.
Conclusion
Consideration for BE is reasonable in any patient with new or persistent unexplained signs or symptoms, especially during the first 48 hours after a penetrating firearm injury. Although venous BE can often be safely observed, arterial BE generally necessitates urgent retrieval. Patients who are managed non-invasively may benefit from follow-up in the first year after injury.
Collapse