Acute Posttraumatic Renal Failure: A Multicenter Perspective.

UNLABELLED: Acute renal failure (ARF) following trauma is rare. Historically, ARF has been associated with a high mortality rate. To investigate this entity we conducted a retrospective review of 72,757 admissions treated at nine regional trauma centers over a 5-year period. Seventy-eight patients (0.098%) developed acute renal failure requiring hemodialysis. Detailed demographic, clinical, and outcome data were collected. Patients with pre-existing medical conditions (group I) had a 70% increase in mortality over those without pre-existing conditions (p less than 0.004). Twenty-four patients (31%) developed ARF less than 6 days after injury (group II). The remainder (group III) developed late renal failure (mean time to first dialysis, 23 days). The predominant cause of death was multiple organ failure (82%). There were no differences in mortality because of multiple organ failure among the three groups of patients. Of the 33 survivors, six (18%) were discharged with renal insufficiency, three (9%) were discharged on dialysis, 23 (70%) were discharged home or to rehabilitation, and 27 (82%) had no significant evidence of renal insufficiency. CONCLUSION: Posttraumatic renal failure requiring hemodialysis is rare (incidence, 107 per 100,000 trauma center admissions), but the mortality rate remains high (57%). Two thirds of the cases of posttraumatic renal failure develop late and are secondary to multiple organ failure; one third of the cases of posttraumatic renal failure develop early and may result from inadequate resuscitation

Determining the magnitude of surveillance bias in the assessment of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis: A prospective observational study of two centers.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in trauma. Controversy exists regarding the use of lower extremity duplex ultrasound screening and surveillance (LEDUS). Advocates cite earlier diagnosis and treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) to prevent clot propagation and pulmonary embolism (PE). Opponents argue that LEDUS identifies more DVT (surveillance bias) but does not reduce the incidence of PE. We sought to determine the magnitude of surveillance bias associated with LEDUS and test the hypothesis that LEDUS does not decrease the incidence of PE after injury. METHODS: We compared data from two Level 1 trauma centers: Scripps Mercy Hospital, which used serial LEDUS, and Christiana Care Health System, which used LEDUS only for symptomatic patients. Beginning in 2013, both centers prospectively collected data on demographics, injury severity, and VTE risk for patients admitted for more than 48 hours. Both centers used mechanical and pharmacologic prophylaxis based on VTE risk assessment. RESULTS: Scripps Mercy treated 772 patients and Christiana Care treated 454 patients with similar injury severity and VTE risk. The incidence of PE was 0.4% at both centers. The odds of a DVT diagnosis were 5.3 times higher (odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.5-12.9; p \u3c 0.0001) for patients admitted to Scripps Mercy than for patients admitted to Christiana Care. Of the 80 patients who developed DVT, PE, or both, 99% received prophylaxis before the event. Among those who received pharmacologic prophylaxis, the VTE rates between the two centers were not statistically significantly different (Scripps Mercy, 11% vs. Christiana Care, 3%; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: The odds of a diagnosis of DVT are increased significantly when a program of LEDUS is used in trauma patients. Neither pharmacologic prophylaxis nor mechanical prophylaxis is completely effective in preventing VTE in trauma patients. VTE should not be considered a never event in this cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III; therapeutic study, level III