Systemic anticoagulation in the setting of vascular extremity trauma

Introduction There is conflicting data regarding if patients with vascular extremity trauma who undergo surgical treatment need to be systematically anticoagulated. We hypothesized that intraoperative systemic anticoagulation (ISA) decreased the risk of repair thrombosis or limb amputation after traumatic vascular injury of the extremities. Methods We analyzed a composite risk of repair thrombosis and/or limb amputation (RTLA) between patients who did and did not undergo ISA during arterial injury repair. Patient data was collected in the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma PROspective Vascular Injury Treatment (PROOVIT) registry. This registry contains demographic, diagnostic, treatment, and outcome data. Results Between February 2013 and August 2015, 193 patients with upper or lower extremity arterial injuries who underwent open operative repair were entered into the PROOVIT registry. The majority were male (87%) with a mean age of 32.6 years (range 4–91) and 74% injured by penetrating mechanism. 63% of the injuries were described as arterial transection and 37% had concomitant venous injury. 62% of patients underwent ISA. RTLA occurred in 22 patients (11%) overall, with no significant difference in these outcomes between patients who received ISA and those that did not (10% vs. 14%, p = 0.6). There was, however, significantly higher total blood product use noted among patients treated with ISA versus those that did not receive ISA (median 3 units vs. 1 unit, p = 0.002). Patients treated with ISA also stayed longer in the ICU (median 3 days vs. 1 day, p = 0.001) and hospital (median 9.5 days vs. 6 days, p = 0.01). Discussion In this multicenter prospective cohort, intraoperative systemic anticoagulation was not associated with a difference in rate of repair thrombosis or limb loss; but was associated with an increase in blood product requirements and prolonged hospital stay. Our data suggest there is no significant difference in outcome to support use of ISA for repair of traumatic arterial injuries

Lung Protective Ventilation (ARDSNet) versus APRV: Ventilatory Management in a Combined Model of Acute Lung and Brain Injury

BACKGROUND: Concomitant lung/brain traumatic injury, results in significant morbidity and mortality. Lung protective ventilation (ARDSNet) has become the standard for managing acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, the resulting permissive hypercapnea may compound traumatic brain injury (TBI). Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) offers an alternative strategy for management of this patient population. APRV was hypothesized to retard the progression of acute lung/brain injury to a greater degree than ARDSNet in a swine model. METHODS: Yorkshire swine were randomized to ARDSNet, APRV, or sham. Ventilatory settings and pulmonary parameters, vitals, blood gases, quantitative histopathology, and cerebral microdialysis were compared between groups using chi-square, Fisher’s exact, Student’s t-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and mixed effects repeated measures modeling. RESULTS: 22 swine (17 male, 5 female), weighing 25±6.0kg, were randomized to APRV (n=9), ARDSNet (n=12), or sham (n=1). PaO(2)/FiO(2) (P/F) ratio dropped significantly while intracranial pressure increased significantly for all three groups immediately following lung and brain injury. Over time, peak inspiratory pressure, mean airway pressure, and P/F ratio significantly increased, while total respiratory rate significantly decreased within the APRV group compared to the ARDSNet group. Histopathology did not show significant differences between groups in overall brain or lung tissue injury; however, cerebral microdialysis trends suggested increased ischemia within the APRV group compared to ARDSNet over time. CONCLUSION: Previous studies have not evaluated the effects of APRV in this population. While our macroscopic parameters and histopathology did not observe a significant difference between groups, microdialysis data suggest a trend toward increased cerebral ischemia associated with APRV over time. Additional and future studies should focus on extending the time interval for observation to further delineate differences between groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II STUDY TYPE: Therapeuti

Serum biomarkers of polyomavirus infection and risk of lung cancer in never smokers

Background: Lung cancer in never smokers is a significant contributor of cancer mortality worldwide. In this analysis, we explored the role of nine human polyomaviruses, including JC virus (JCV), BK virus (BKV) and Merkel cell virus (MCV), in lung cancer development in never smokers as there are data to support that polyomaviruses are potentially carcinogenic in the human lung. Methods: We used multiplex serology to detect serum antibodies to polyomaviruses in a nested case-control design combining lung cancer cases and controls from four cohort studies - NYU Women's Health Study (NYU-WHS), Janus Serum Bank, Shanghai Women's Health Study and Singapore Chinese Health Study (SCHS). Results: The final analyses included 511 cases and 508 controls. Seroprevalence for each polyomavirus showed significant heterogeneity by study, but overall there were no statistically significant differences between cases and controls. In total, 69.1% of the cases and 68.7% of the controls were seropositive for JCV VP1 antibody. Seropositivity for BKV was higher at 89.0% in cases and 89.8% in controls and lower for MCV at 59.3% in cases and 61.6% in controls. Similar results were obtained after adding an additional retrospective case-control study (Xuanwei study) to the analysis. Conclusions: Our results do not support the hypothesis that seropositivity for polyomaviruses is associated with increased lung cancer risk in never smokers. Future research to evaluate relationship between polyomavirus infection and lung carcinogenesis should focus more on evaluating the presence of virus or viral nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) in lung tumour samples. © 2016 Cancer Research UK. All rights reserved