Phlebotomy resulting in controlled hypovolaemia to prevent blood loss in major hepatic resections (PRICE-1): a pilot randomized clinical trial for feasibility

BACKGROUND

Major liver resection is associated with blood loss and transfusion. Observational data suggest that hypovolaemic phlebotomy can reduce these risks. This feasibility RCT compared hypovolaemic phlebotomy with the standard of care, to inform a future multicentre trial.

METHODS

Patients undergoing major liver resections were enrolled between June 2016 and January 2018. Randomization was done during surgery and the surgeons were blinded to the group allocation. For hypovolaemic phlebotomy, 7-10 ml per kg whole blood was removed, without intravenous fluid replacement. Co-primary outcomes were feasibility and estimated blood loss (EBL).

RESULTS

A total of 62 patients were randomized to hypovolaemic phlebotomy (31) or standard care (31), at a rate of 3·1 patients per month, thus meeting the co-primary feasibility endpoint. The median EBL difference was -111 ml (P = 0·456). Among patients at high risk of transfusion, the median EBL difference was -448 ml (P = 0·069). Secondary feasibility endpoints were met: enrolment, blinding and target phlebotomy (mean(s.d.) 7·6(1·9) ml per kg). Blinded surgeons perceived that parenchymal resection was easier with hypovolaemic phlebotomy than standard care (16 of 31 versus 10 of 31 respectively), and guessed that hypovolaemic phlebotomy was being used with an accuracy of 65 per cent (20 of 31). There was no significant difference in overall complications (10 of 31 versus 15 of 31 patients), major complications or transfusion. Among those at high risk, transfusion was required in two of 15 versus three of nine patients (P = 0·326).

CONCLUSION

Endpoints were met successfully, but no difference in EBL was found in this feasibility study. A multicentre trial (PRICE-2) powered to identify a difference in perioperative blood transfusion is justified. Registration number: NCT02548910 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Non-operative management of blunt hepatic trauma: Does angioembolization have a major impact?

PURPOSE

A paradigm shift toward non-operative management (NOM) of blunt hepatic trauma has occurred. With advances in percutaneous interventions, even severe liver injuries are being managed non-operatively. However, although overall mortality is decreased with NOM, liver-related morbidity remains high. This study was undertaken to explore the morbidity and mortality of blunt hepatic trauma in the era of angioembolization (AE).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of trauma patients with blunt hepatic injury who were assessed at our centre between 1999 and 2011 were identified. Logistic regression was undertaken to identify factors increasing the likelihood of operative management (OM) and mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 396 patients with a mean ISS of 33 (± 14). Sixty-two (18%) patients had severe liver injuries (≥ AAST grade IV). OM occurred in 109 (27%) patients. Logistic regression revealed high ISS (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.05-1.10), and lower systolic blood pressure on arrival (OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.97-0.99) to be associated with OM. The overall mortality was 17%. Older patients (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.03-1.07), those with high ISS (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.08-1.14) and those requiring OM (OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.47-5.69) were more likely to die. Liver-related morbidities occurred in equal frequency in the OM (23%) and AE (29%) groups (p = 0.32). Only 3% of those with NOM experienced morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients with blunt hepatic trauma can be successfully managed non-operatively. Morbidity associated with NOM was low. Patients requiring AE had morbidity similar to OM.