Background

The traditional paradigm is that deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolus (PE) are different temporal phases of a single disease process, most often labeled as the composite end point venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, we theorize that after severe blunt injury, DVT and PE may represent independent thrombotic entities rather than different stages of a single pathophysiologic process and therefore exhibit different clinical risk factor profiles.

Methods

We examined a large, multicenter prospective cohort of severely injured blunt trauma patients to compare clinical risk factors for DVT and PE, including indicators of injury severity, shock, resuscitation parameters, comorbidities, and VTE prophylaxis. Independent risk factors for each outcome were determined by cross-validated logistic regression modeling using advanced exhaustive model search procedures.

Results

The study cohort consisted of 1,822 severely injured blunt trauma patients (median Injury Severity Score [ISS], 33; median base deficit, -9.5). Incidence of DVT and PE were 5.1% and 3.9%, respectively. Only 9 (5.7%) of 73 patients with a PE were also diagnosed with DVT. Independent risk factors associated with DVT include prophylaxis initiation within 48 hours (odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.90) and thoracic Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 3 or greater (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.12-2.95), while independent risk factors for PE were serum lactate of greater than 5 (OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.43-3.79) and male sex (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.17-3.84). Both DVT and PE exhibited differing risk factor profiles from the classic composite end point of VTE.

Conclusion

DVT and PE exhibit differing risk factor profiles following severe injury. Clinical risk factors for diagnosis of DVT after severe blunt trauma include the inability to initiate prompt pharmacologic prophylaxis and severe thoracic injury, which may represent overall injury burden. In contrast, risk factors for PE are male sex and physiologic evidence of severe shock. We hypothesize that postinjury DVT and PE may represent a broad spectrum of pathologic thrombotic processes as opposed to the current conventional wisdom of peripheral thrombosis and subsequent embolus.

Background

The traditional sequence of trauma care: Airway, Breathing, Circulation (ABC) has been practiced for many years. It became the standard of care despite the lack of scientific evidence. We hypothesized that patients in hypovolemic shock would have comparable outcomes with initiation of bleeding treatment (transfusion) prior to intubation (CAB), compared to those patients treated with the traditional ABC sequence.

Methods

This study was sponsored by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trials committee. We performed a retrospective analysis of all patients that presented to trauma centers with presumptive hypovolemic shock indicated by pre-hospital or emergency department hypotension and need for intubation from January 1, 2014 to July 1, 2016. Data collected included demographics, timing of intubation, vital signs before and after intubation, timing of the blood transfusion initiation related to intubation, and outcomes.

Results

From 440 patients that met inclusion criteria, 245 (55.7%) received intravenous blood product resuscitation first (CAB), and 195 (44.3%) were intubated before any resuscitation was started (ABC). There was no difference in ISS, mechanism, or comorbidities. Those intubated prior to receiving transfusion had a lower GCS than those with transfusion initiation prior to intubation (ABC: 4, CAB:9, p = 0.005). Although mortality was high in both groups, there was no statistically significant difference (CAB 47% and ABC 50%). In multivariate analysis, initial SBP and initial GCS were the only independent predictors of death.

Conclusion

The current study highlights that many trauma centers are already initiating circulation first prior to intubation when treating hypovolemic shock (CAB), even in patients with a low GCS. This practice was not associated with an increased mortality. Further prospective investigation is warranted.

Trial registration

IRB approval number: HM20006627. Retrospective trial not registered.

BACKGROUNDPrehospital plasma improves survival in severely injured patients transported by air ambulance. We hypothesized that prehospital plasma would be associated with a reduction in immune imbalance and endothelial damage.METHODSWe sampled blood from 405 trauma patients enrolled in the Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial upon hospital admission (0 hours) and 24 hours post admission across 6 U.S. sites. We assayed samples for 21 inflammatory mediators and 7 markers associated with endothelial function and damage. We performed hierarchical clustering analysis (HCA) of these biomarkers of the immune response and endothelial injury. Regression analysis was used to control for differences across study and to assess any association with prehospital plasma resuscitation.RESULTSHCA distinguished two patient clusters with different injury patterns and outcomes. Patients in cluster A had greater injury severity and incidence of blunt trauma, traumatic brain injury, and mortality. Cluster A patients that received prehospital plasma showed improved 30-day survival. Prehospital plasma did not improve survival in cluster B patients. In an adjusted analysis of the most seriously injured patients, prehospital plasma was associated with an increase in adiponectin, IL-1β, IL-17A, IL-23, and IL-17E upon admission, and a reduction in syndecan-1, TM, VEGF, IL-6, IP-10, MCP-1, and TNF-α, and an increase in IL-33, IL-21, IL-23, and IL-17E 24 hours later.CONCLUSIONPrehospital plasma may ameliorate immune dysfunction and the endotheliopathy of trauma. These effects of plasma may contribute to improved survival in injured patients.TRIAL REGISTRATIONNCT01818427.FUNDINGDepartment of Defense; National Institutes of Health, U.S. Army.