Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy Access: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Access by Urologist vs Radiologist

Introduction: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a minimally invasive procedure indicated for the management of staghorn calculi or renal calculi >2.0 cm. Percutaneous renal access is a critical step in this procedure and can be performed by either urologists or interventional radiologists. The purpose of this study is to perform a meta-analysis to compare outcomes between urologist and interventional radiologist-mediated access. Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted to identify studies comparing urologist- and interventional radiologist-acquired access. Studies must have included both urologist- and intervention radiologist-acquired access data but were excluded if (1) not in English; (2) abstract without full text; (3) unable to determine who acquired access; and (4) only included either urologist or interventional radiologist data. Meta-analysis comparison was generated with the Review Manager 5.4 software. Results: After screening the abstracts and title, 55 relevant studies were identified. Nine articles were utilized in the meta-analysis. Urologist-acquired access was associated with a greater stone-free rate (risk ratio [RR] = 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.20), a reduction in major complications (RR = 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53-0.92), and a shorter hospital stay (mean difference -0.40; 95% CI, -0.64 to -0.16) in comparison with radiologist-acquired access. Urologist-acquired access was associated with greater blood loss (mean difference 0.46; 95% CI, 0.32-0.60) when compared with interventional radiology-acquired access. No significant differences were found with regard to unusable access, multiple tracts, supracostal access, ancillary procedure requirement, operative time, minor complications, and transfusions. Conclusions: Urologist-acquired access may be associated with a higher stone-free rate and a reduction in major complications, whereas interventional radiologist-mediated access may be associated with a reduction in blood loss, despite similar transfusion rates.

Massive Transfusion Activations in Non-Trauma Patients

Introduction

Massive transfusion activations (MTAs) are commonly used in the care of the trauma patient. However, MTA for trauma patients constitutes only a small fraction of MpTA at our institution. The aim of this study was to characterize MTA in non-trauma patients to better understand how this strategy is employed at a larger tertiary hospital.

Methods

All MTA involving non-trauma patients from January 2017 to April 2019 were reviewed. Patients with unclear indications for MTA were excluded. Data collected included patient demographics, reason for MTA, transfusion ratios, use of adjunctive antifibrinolytics, use of viscoelastic testing, and vasopressor administration at the time of MTA.

Results

There were 328 patients and 353 MTA identified over the study period. The mean age was 52.0 years and 40.9% were male. Patients were most commonly under the care of a medical service (55.2%), while 25.3% were obstetric patients and 19.5% were surgical patients. Compliance with 1:1:1 transfusion ratios was low. Concomitant vasopressor use was high (70.8%), while antifibrinolytic agents (13.0%) and viscoelastic testing (19.0%) were used less commonly. The overall mortality of the study population was 56.1%.

Conclusions

Massive transfusion activations are frequently used in non-trauma patients. There was a low rate of adherence to 1:1:1 transfusion ratios as well as utilization of adjuncts and tools that could allow for targeted resuscitation. Understanding practice patterns relating to MTA may allow for an opportunity for improvement.

Correcting Coagulopathy With Fresh Frozen Plasma in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit: How Much Do We Need to Transfuse?

INTRODUCTION

Thromboelastography (TEG) is an assay that assesses the coagulation status. Patients with prolonged reaction time (R) require fresh frozen plasma (FFP); however, the volume required to correct the R time is unknown. We sought to quantify the volume required to correct the R time and calculate the response ratio in our surgical intensive care unit (SICU) to allow for targeted resuscitation.

METHODS

Surgical intensive care unit patients between Aug 2017 and July 2019 with a prolonged initial R time and at least two TEG tests performed within 24 hours were included. The response ratio was defined as the change in the R time divided by the number of FFP units. High responders (response ratio >5 minutes/unit) were compared to low responders (response ratio ≤5 minutes/unit).

RESULTS

Forty-six patients were included. While the mean response ratio was 5 minutes/unit, there was significant variation among patients. There were 28.0 (60.9%) low responders and 18.0 (39.1%) high responders. Low responders were more likely male (64.0% vs. 33.0%, P = .04), had a higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score (42.0 vs. 27.0, P = .03), and a higher mortality rate (54.0% vs. 22.0%, P = .04).

CONCLUSIONS

On average, one unit of FFP corrects the R time by 5 minutes; however, there was significant variation between high and low responders. Male patients with higher APACHE IV score are expected to be low responders with a higher mortality rate. These findings can guide FFP transfusion and provide additional prognostication.