An observation-first strategy for liver injuries with blush on computed tomography is safe and effective.

INTRODUCTION: The management of liver injuries in hemodynamically stable patients is variable and includes primary treatment strategies of observation (OBS), angiography (interventional radiology [IR]) with angioembolization (AE), or operative intervention (OR). We aimed to evaluate the management of patients with liver injuries with active extravasation on computed tomography (CT) imaging, hypothesizing that AE will have more complications without improving outcomes compared with OBS. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Patients who underwent CT within 2 hours after arrival with extravasation (e.g., blush) on imaging were included. Exclusion criteria included cirrhosis, nontraumatic hemorrhage, transfers from outside facilities, and pregnancy. No hemodynamic exclusion criteria were used. The primary outcome was liver-specific complications. Secondary outcomes include length of stay and mortality. Angioembolization patients were compared with patients treated without AE. Propensity score matching was used to match based on penetrating mechanism, liver injury severity, arrival vital signs, and early transfusion. RESULTS: Twenty-three centers enrolled 192 patients. Forty percent of patients (n = 77) were initially OBS. Eleven OBS patients (14%) failed nonoperative management and went to IR or OR. Sixty-one patients (32%) were managed with IR, and 42 (69%) of these had AE as an initial intervention. Fifty-four patients (28%) went to OR+/- IR. After propensity score matching (n = 34 per group), there was no difference in baseline characteristics between AE and OBS. The AE group experienced more complications with a higher rate of IR-placed drains for abscess or biloma (22% vs. 0%, p = 0.01) and an increased overall length of stay ( p = 0.01). No difference was noted in transfusions or mortality. CONCLUSION: Observation is highly effective with few requiring additional interventions. Angioembolization was associated with higher rate of secondary drain placement for abscesses or biloma. Given this, a trial of OBS and avoidance of empiric AE may be warranted in hemodynamically stable, liver-injured patient with extravasation on CT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II

MOVING THE NEEDLE ON TIME TO RESUSCITATION: AN EAST PROSPECTIVE MULTICENTER STUDY OF VASCULAR ACCESS IN HYPOTENSIVE INJURED PATIENTS USING TRAUMA VIDEO REVIEW.

INTRODUCTION: Vascular access in hypotensive trauma patients is challenging. Little evidence exists on the time required and success rates of vascular access types. We hypothesized that intraosseous (IO) access would be faster and more successful than peripheral IV (PIV) and central venous catheter (CVC) access in hypotensive patients. METHODS: An EAST prospective multicenter trial was performed; 19 centers provided data. Trauma video review (TVR) was used to evaluate the resuscitations of hypotensive (systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg) trauma patients. Highly granular data from video recordings were abstracted. Data collected included vascular access attempt type, location, success rate, and procedural time. Demographic and injury-specific variables were obtained from the medical record. Success rates, procedural durations, and time to resuscitation were compared among access strategies (IO vs PIV vs CVC). RESULTS: 1,410 access attempts occurred in 581 patients with a median age of 40[27-59] years and an ISS of 22[10-34]. 932 PIV, 204 IO and 249 CVC were attempted. 70% of access attempts were successful but were significantly less likely to be successful in females (64% vs. 71%, p = 0.01). Median time to any access was 5.0[3.2-8.0] minutes. IO had higher success rates than PIV or CVC (93% vs. 67% vs. 59%, p \u3c 0.001) and remained higher after subsequent failures (second attempt 85% vs. 59% vs. 69%, p = 0.08; third attempt 100% vs 33% vs. 67%, p = 0.002). Duration varied by access type (IO 36[23-60]sec; PIV 44[31-61]sec; CVC 171[105-298]sec) and was significantly different between IO vs. CVC (p \u3c 0.001) and PIV vs. CVC (p \u3c 0.001) but not PIV vs. IO. Time to resuscitation initiation was shorter in patients whose initial access attempt was IO, 5.8 minutes vs. 6.7 minutes (p = 0.015). This was more pronounced in patients arriving to the hospital with no established access (5.7 minutes vs. 7.5 minutes, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IO is as fast as PIV and more likely to be successful compared with other access strategies in hypotensive trauma patients. Patients whose initial access attempt was IO were resuscitated more expeditiously. IO access should be considered a first line therapy in hypotensive trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II Therapeutic/Care Management