What happens after they survive? The role of anticoagulants and antiplatelets in IVC injuries

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) after an inferior vena cava (IVC) injury is a devastating complication. Current practice involves variable use of anticoagulation and antiplatelet (AC/AP) agents. We hypothesized that AC/AP can reduce the incidence of VTE and that delayed institution of AC/AP is associated with increased VTE events.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed IVC injuries cared for at a large urban adult academic level 1 trauma center between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2020, surviving 72 hours. Patient demographics, injury mechanism, surgical repair, type and timing of AC, and type and timing of VTE events were characterized. Postoperative AC status during hospital course before an acute VTE event was delineated by grouping patients into four categories: full, prophylactic, prophylactic with concomitant AP, and none. The primary outcome was the incidence of an acute VTE event. IVC ligation was excluded from analysis.

Results

Of the 76 patients sustaining an IVC injury, 26 were included. The incidence of a new deep vein thrombosis distal to the IVC injury and a new pulmonary embolism was 31% and 15%, respectively. The median onset of VTE was 5 days (IQR 1–11). Four received full AC, 10 received prophylactic AC with concomitant AP, 8 received prophylactic AC, and 4 received no AC/AP. New VTE events occurred in 0.0% of full, in 30.0% of prophylactic with concomitant AP, in 50.0% of prophylactic, and in 50.0% without AC/AP. There was no difference in baseline demographics, injury mechanisms, surgical interventions, and bleeding complications.

Discussion

This is the first study to suggest that delay and degree of antithrombotic initiation in an IVC-injured patient may be associated with an increase in VTE events. Consideration of therapy initiation should be performed on hemostatic stabilization. Future studies are necessary to characterize the optimal dosing and temporal timing of these therapies.

Level of evidence

Therapeutic, level 3.

A surgical needs assessment for airway rapid responses: A retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Airway rapid response (ARR) teams can be compiled of anesthesiologists, intensivists, otolaryngologists, general and thoracic surgeons, respiratory therapists, and nurses. The optimal composition of an ARR team is unknown but considered to be resource intensive. We sought to determine the type of technical procedures performed during an ARR activation to inform team composition.

METHODS

A large urban quaternary academic medical center retrospective review (2016-2019) of adult ARR patients was performed. Analysis included ARR demographics, patient characteristics, characteristics of preexisting tracheostomies, incidence of concomitant conditions, and procedures completed during an ARR event.

RESULTS

A total of 345 ARR patients with a median age of 60 years (interquartile range, 47-69 years) and a median time to ARR conclusion of 28 minutes (interquartile range, 14-47 minutes) were included. About 41.7% of the ARR had a preexisting tracheostomy. Overall, there were 130 procedures completed that can be performed by a general surgeon in addition to the 122 difficult intubations. These procedures included recannulation of a tracheostomy, operative intervention, new emergent tracheostomy or cricothyroidotomy, thoracostomy tube placement, initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and pericardiocentesis.

CONCLUSION

Highly technical procedures are common during an ARR, including procedures related to tracheostomies. Surgeons possess a comprehensive skill set that is unique and comprehensive with respect to airway emergencies. This distinctive skill set creates an important role within the ARR team to perform these urgent technical procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiologic/prognostic, level III.