Presentation patterns and prognosis of 109 isolated venous injuries in 99 patients

Objectives

To identify outcome predictors of isolated venous injuries (VIs).

Methods

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected information.

Results

A total of 99 patients with 109 isolated VI were included. All-cause mortality was 18/99 (18%) and mortality related to the VI was 10/99 (10%). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors of all-cause mortality included age (odds ratio – OR – 1.06, p = 0.042), external cause – trauma and foreign body retention – of VI (OR 34.62, p = 0.002) and the number of red blood cell units transfused intraoperatively (OR 2.10, p < 0.001), while independent predictors of VI-related mortality included external cause of VI (OR 47.60, p = 0.001) and the number of red blood cell units transfused intraoperatively (OR 1.72, p = 0.003).

Conclusions

VIs due to external causes have a high mortality rate. On the other hand, VIs due to internal causes (iatrogenic injuries during a surgical procedure) are managed promptly and have a very low mortality related to the VI.

Venous thromboembolism after major venous injuries: Competing priorities

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) after major vascular injury (MVI) is particularly challenging because the competing risk of thrombosis and embolization after direct vessel injury must be balanced with risk of bleeding after surgical repair. We hypothesized that venous injuries, repair type, and intraoperative anticoagulation would influence VTE formation after MVI.

METHODS

A multi-institution, retrospective cohort study of consecutive MVI patients was conducted at three urban, Level I centers (2005-2013). Patients with MVI of the neck, torso, or proximal extremities (to elbows/knees) were included. Our primary study endpoint was the development of VTE (DVT or pulmonary embolism [PE]).

RESULTS

The 435 major vascular injury patients were primarily young (27 years) men (89%) with penetrating (84%) injuries. When patients with (n = 108) and without (n = 327) VTE were compared, we observed no difference in age, mechanism, extremity injury, tourniquet use, orthopedic and spine injuries, damage control, local heparinized saline, or vascular surgery consultation (all p > 0.05). VTE patients had greater Injury Severity Score (ISS) (17 vs. 12), shock indices (1 vs. 0.9), and more torso (58% vs. 35%) and venous (73% vs. 48%) injuries, but less often received systemic intraoperative anticoagulation (39% vs. 53%) or postoperative enoxaparin (47% vs. 61%) prophylaxis (all p < 0.05). After controlling for ISS, hemodynamics, injured vessel, intraoperative anticoagulation, and postoperative prophylaxis, multivariable analysis revealed venous injury was independently predictive of VTE (odds ratio, 2.7; p = 0.002). Multivariable analysis of the venous injuries subset (n = 237) then determined that only delay in starting VTE chemoprophylaxis (odds ratio, 1.3/day; p = 0.013) independently predicted VTE after controlling for ISS, hemodynamics, injured vessel, surgical subspecialty, intraoperative anticoagulation, and postoperative prophylaxis. Overall, 3.4% of venous injury patients developed PE, but PE rates were not related to their operative management (p = 0.72).

CONCLUSION

Patients with major venous injuries are at high risk for VTE, regardless of intraoperative management. Our results support the immediate initiation of postoperative chemoprophylaxis in patients with major venous injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.