Search

Background: Timely tourniquet placement may limit ongoing hemorrhage and reduce the need for blood products. This study evaluates if prehospital tourniquet application altered the initial transfusion needs in arterial injuries when compared with a non-tourniquet control group., Methods: Extremity arterial injuries were queried from our level I trauma center registry from 2013 to 2017. The characteristics of the cohort with prehospital tourniquet placement (TQ+) were described in terms of tourniquet use, duration, and frequency over time. These cases were matched 1:1 by the artery injured, demographics, Injury Severity Score, and mechanism of injury to patients arriving without a tourniquet (TQ-). The primary outcome was transfusion within the first 24 hours, with secondary outcomes of morbidity (rhabdomyolysis, renal failure, compartment syndrome), amputation (initial vs. delayed), and length of stay. Statistical tests included t-test and χ 2 for continuous and categorical variables, respectively, with p<0.05 considered as significant., Results: Extremity arterial injuries occurred in 192 patients, with 69 (36%) having prehospital tourniquet placement for an average of 78 minutes. Tourniquet use increased over time from 9% (2013) to 62% (2017). TQ+ patients were predominantly male (81%), with a mean age of 35.0 years. Forty-six (67%) received blood transfusion within the first 24 hours. In the matched comparison (n=69 pairs), TQ+ patients had higher initial heart rate (110 vs. 100, p=0.02), frequency of transfusion (67% vs. 48%, p<0.01), and initial amputations (23% vs. 6%, p<0.01). TQ+ patients had increased frequency of initial amputation regardless of upper (n=43 pairs) versus lower (n=26 pairs) extremity involvement; however, only upper extremity TQ+ patients had increased transfusion frequency and volume. No difference was observed in morbidity, length of stay, and mortality with tourniquet use., Discussion: Tourniquet use has increased over time in patients with extremity arterial injuries. Patients having prehospital tourniquets required a higher frequency of transfusion and initial amputation, without an increase in complications., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, level IV., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Penetrating cardiac injuries (PCIs) are highly lethal, and a sternotomy is considered mandatory for suspected PCI. Recent literature suggests pericardial window (PCW) may be sufficient for superficial cardiac injuries to drain hemopericardium and assess for continued bleeding and instability. This study objective is to review patients with PCI managed with sternotomy and PCW and compare outcomes., Methods: All patients with penetrating chest trauma from 2000 to 2016 requiring PCW or sternotomy were reviewed. Data were collected for patients who had PCW for hemopericardium managed with only pericardial drain, or underwent sternotomy for cardiac injuries grade 1-3 according to the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Cardiac Organ Injury Scale (OIS). The PCW+drain group was compared with the Sternotomy group using Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum test with P<0.05 considered statistically significant., Results: Sternotomy was performed in 57 patients for suspected PCI, including 7 with AAST OIS grade 1-3 injuries (Sternotomy group). Four patients had pericardial injuries, three had partial thickness cardiac injuries, two of which were suture-repaired. Average blood drained was 285 mL (100-500 mL). PCW was performed in 37 patients, and 21 had hemopericardium; 16 patients proceeded to sternotomy and 5 were treated with pericardial drainage (PCW+drain group). All PCW+drain patients had suction evacuation of hemopericardium, pericardial lavage, and verified bleeding cessation, followed by pericardial drain placement and admission to intensive care unit (ICU). Average blood drained was 240 mL (40-600 mL), and pericardial drains were removed on postoperative day 3.6 (2-5). There was no significant difference in demographics, injury mechanism, Revised Trauma Score exploratory laparotomies, hospital or ICU length of stay, or ventilator days. No in-hospital mortality occurred in either group., Conclusions: Hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating chest trauma and hemopericardium may be safely managed with PCW, lavage and drainage with documented cessation of bleeding, and postoperative ICU monitoring., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, level IV., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Objective: To determine the accuracy of CT of the chest in diagnosing the presence of cardiac injury in stable patients with penetrating chest injuries., Methods: A retrospective chart review of a convenience sample of stable patients with penetrating thoracic wounds evaluated for hemopericardium using chest CT at an urban level I trauma center., Results: 60 stable patients with penetrating wounds in proximity to the heart underwent CT. Three patients had radiographic evidence of pericardial fluid, and 1 had an equivocal study. These 4 patients underwent subxiphoid pericardial window exploration: 2 had only clear fluid present, the other 2 had hemopericardium. The latter patients had a total of 3 cardiac and 1 diaphragmatic injuries, which were repaired at subsequent sternotomy. None of the 56 patients who had negative CTs had further clinical evidence of cardiac injury. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CT in this setting for hemopericardium are 100% (95% CI 18-100%), 96.6% (95% CI 88-100%), and 96.7% (95% CI 89-100%), respectively., Conclusion: Chest CT may be a useful test for diagnosing the presence of hemopericardium in the setting of penetrating thoracic injury. With the caveat that the patient must be removed from a closely monitored environment, the authors the use of CT in stable patients with penetrating chest wounds whenever echocardiography is unavailable.