Comparison of outcomes in non-head injured trauma patients using pre-injury warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant therapy

Predictors of direct oral anticoagulant concentrations in the trauma population

Introduction

Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use is becoming more prevalent in patients presenting after trauma. We sought to identify the prevalence and predictors of subtherapeutic and therapeutic DOAC concentrations and hypothesized that increased anti-Xa levels would correlate with increased risk of bleeding and other poor outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study of all trauma patients on apixaban or rivaroxaban admitted to a level 1 trauma center between January 2015 and July 2021 was performed. Patients were excluded if they did not have a DOAC-specific anti-Xa level at presentation. Therapeutic levels were defined as an anti-Xa of 50 ng/mL to 250 ng/mL for rivaroxaban and 75 ng/mL to 250 ng/mL for apixaban. Linear regression was used to identify correlations between study variables and anti-Xa level, and binomial logistic regression was used to test the association of anti-Xa level with outcomes.

Results

There were 364 trauma patients admitted during the study period who were documented to be on apixaban or rivaroxaban. Of these, 245 patients had anti-Xa levels measured at admission. The population was 53% woman, with median age of 78 years, and median Injury Severity Score of 5. In total, 39% of patients had therapeutic and 20% had supratherapeutic anti-Xa levels. Female sex, increased age, decreased height and weight, and lower estimated creatinine clearance were associated with higher anti-Xa levels at admission. There was no correlation between anti-Xa level and the need for transfusion or reversal agent administration, admission diagnosis of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), progression of ICH, hospital length of stay, or mortality.

Conclusions

Anti-Xa levels in trauma patients on DOACs vary widely; female patients who are older, smaller, and have decreased kidney function present with higher DOAC-specific anti-Xa levels after trauma. We were unable to detect an association between anti-Xa levels and clinical outcomes.

Level of evidence

III-Prognostic and Epidemiological.

Management of Hemorrhagic Shock: Physiology Approach, Timing and Strategies

Hemorrhagic shock (HS) management is based on a timely, rapid, definitive source control of bleeding/s and on blood loss replacement. Stopping the hemorrhage from progressing from any named and visible vessel is the main stem fundamental praxis of efficacy and effectiveness and an essential, obligatory, life-saving step. Blood loss replacement serves the purpose of preventing ischemia/reperfusion toxemia and optimizing tissue oxygenation and microcirculation dynamics. The "physiological classification of HS" dictates the timely management and suits the 'titrated hypotensive resuscitation' tactics and the 'damage control surgery' strategy. In any hypotensive but not yet critical shock, the body's response to a fluid load test determines the cut-off point between compensation and progression between the time for adopting conservative treatment and preparing for surgery or rushing to the theater for rapid bleeding source control. Up to 20% of the total blood volume is given to refill the unstressed venous return volume. In any critical level of shock where, ab initio, the patient manifests signs indicating critical physiology and impending cardiac arrest or cardiovascular accident, the balance between the life-saving reflexes stretched to the maximum and the insufficient distal perfusion (blood, oxygen, and substrates) remains in a liable and delicate equilibrium, susceptible to any minimal change or interfering variable. In a cardiac arrest by exsanguination, the core of the physiological issue remains the rapid restoration of a sufficient venous return, allowing the heart to pump it back into systemic circulation either by open massage via sternotomy or anterolateral thoracotomy or spontaneously after aorta clamping in the chest or in the abdomen at the epigastrium under extracorporeal resuscitation and induced hypothermia. This is the only way to prevent ischemic damage to the brain and the heart. This is accomplishable rapidly and efficiently only by a direct approach, which is a crush laparotomy if the bleeding is coming from an abdominal +/- lower limb site or rapid sternotomy/anterolateral thoracotomy if the bleeding is coming from a chest +/- upper limbs site. Without first stopping the bleeding and refilling the heart, any further exercise is doomed to failure. Direct source control via laparotomy/thoracotomy, with the concomitant or soon following venous refilling, are the two essential, initial life-saving steps.

Coagulopathy management of multiple injured patients - a comprehensive literature review of the European guideline 2019

The European guideline on the management of trauma-induced major bleeding and coagulopathy summarises the most relevant recommendations for trauma coagulopathy management. The management of trauma-induced major bleeding should interdisciplinary follow algorithms which distinguish between life-threatening and non-life-threatening bleeding. Point-of-care viscoelastic methods (VEM) assist target-controlled haemostatic treatment. Neither conventional coagulation assays nor VEM should delay treatment in life-threatening trauma-induced bleeding. Adjustments may be rational due to local circumstances, including the availability of blood products, pharmaceuticals, and employees.

A Multicenter Validation of the Modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG): Are They Safe and Effective?

BACKGROUND

The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) are an algorithm for treating patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) by which selected patients do not require a repeat head CT, a neurosurgery consult, or even an admission. The mBIG refined the original Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) to improve safety and reproducibility. The purpose of this study is to assess safety and resource utilization with mBIG implementation.

METHODS

The mBIG were implemented at three level 1 trauma centers in 8/2017. A multicenter retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on adult mBIG 1 and 2 patients. The post mBIG implementation period (8/2017-2/2021) was compared to a previous BIG retrospective evaluation (1/2014-12/2016).

RESULTS

There were 764 patients in the two study periods. No differences were identified in demographics, ISS, or admission GCS. Fewer CT scans (2 [1,2] vs 2 [2,3], p < 0.0001) and neurosurgery consults (61.9% vs 95.9%, p < 0.0001) were obtained post mBIG implementation. Hospital (2 [1,4] vs 2 [2,4], p = 0.013) and ICU (0 [0,1] vs 1 [1,2], p < 0.0001) length of stay were shorter after mBIG implementation. No difference was seen in the rate of clinical or radiographic progression, neurosurgery operations, or mortality between the two groups.After mBIG implementation, 8 patients (1.6%) worsened clinically. Six patients that clinically progressed were discharged with GCS 15 without needing neurosurgery intervention. One patient had clinical and radiographic decompensation and required craniotomy. Another patient worsened clinically and radiographically, but due to metastatic cancer, elected to pursue comfort measures and died.

CONCLUSION

This prospective validation shows the mBIG are safe, pragmatic, and can dramatically improve resource utilization when implemented.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, Therapeutic.