Department of Traumatology and Critical Care Medicine, Osaka City University, Graduate school of medicine, , 1-5-7, Asahi-machi, Abeno-ku, Osaka City, Osaka, 545-8585, Japan.
BMC Emerg Med. 2020 Apr 16;20(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s12873-020-00322-1.
When resuscitating patients with hemorrhagic shock following trauma, fluid volume restriction and permissive hypotension prior to bleeding control are emphasized along with the good outcome especially for penetrating trauma patients. However, evidence that these concepts apply well to the management of blunt trauma is lacking, and their use in blunt trauma remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the impact of vasopressor use in patients with blunt trauma in severe hemorrhagic shock.
In this single-center retrospective study, we reviewed records of blunt trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock and included patients with a probability of survival < 0.6. Vital signs on arrival, characteristics, examinations, concomitant injuries and severity, vasopressor use and dose, and volumes of crystalloids and blood infused were compared between survivors and non-survivors. Data are described as median (25-75% interquartile range) or number.
Forty patients admitted from April 2014 to September 2019 were included. Median Injury Severity Score in survivors vs non-survivors was 41 (36-48) vs 45 (34-51) (p = 0.48), with no significant difference in probability of survival between the two groups (0.22 [0.12-0.48] vs 0.21 [0.08-0.46]; p = 0.93). Despite no significant difference in patient characteristics and injury severity, non-survivors were administered vasopressors significantly earlier after admission and at significantly higher doses. Total blood transfusion amount administered within 24 h after admission was significantly higher in survivors (8430 [5680-9320] vs 6540 [4550-7880] mL; p = 0.03). Max catecholamine index was significantly higher in non-survivors (2 [0-4] vs 14 [10-18]; p = 0.008), and administered vasopressors were terminated significantly earlier (12 [4-26] vs 34 [10-74] hours; p = 0.026) in survivors. Although the variables of severity of the patients had no significant differences, vasopressor use (Odds ratio [OR] = 21.32, 95% confident interval [CI]: 3.71-121.6; p = 0.0001) and its early administration (OR = 10.56, 95%CI: 1.90-58.5; p = 0.005) indicated significant higher risk of death in this study.
Vasopressor administration and high-dose use for resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock following severe blunt trauma are potentially associated with increased mortality. Although the transfused volume of blood products tends to be increased when resuscitating these patients, early termination of vasopressor had better to be considered.
在创伤后发生失血性休克的患者中,复苏时强调液体容量限制和允许性低血压,直到控制出血,这对穿透性创伤患者尤其有益。然而,缺乏证据表明这些概念适用于钝性创伤的处理,因此在钝性创伤中使用这些概念仍存在争议。本研究旨在评估血管加压药在严重失血性休克的钝性创伤患者中的使用效果。
在这项单中心回顾性研究中,我们回顾了失血性休克的钝性创伤患者的记录,并纳入了存活概率<0.6 的患者。比较了幸存者和非幸存者到达时的生命体征、特征、检查、合并伤和严重程度、血管加压药的使用和剂量,以及输注的晶体和血液量。数据以中位数(25-75%四分位距)或数量表示。
2014 年 4 月至 2019 年 9 月期间共纳入 40 名患者。幸存者和非幸存者的损伤严重程度评分中位数分别为 41(36-48)和 45(34-51)(p=0.48),两组的存活概率无显著差异(0.22[0.12-0.48]和 0.21[0.08-0.46];p=0.93)。尽管患者特征和损伤严重程度无显著差异,但非幸存者在入院后更早、更高剂量地使用血管加压药。幸存者在入院后 24 小时内接受的总输血量显著更高(8430[5680-9320]和 6540[4550-7880]mL;p=0.03)。非幸存者的最大儿茶酚胺指数显著更高(2[0-4]和 14[10-18];p=0.008),血管加压药的使用时间更早(12[4-26]和 34[10-74]小时;p=0.026)。尽管患者严重程度的变量没有显著差异,但血管加压药的使用(比值比[OR] = 21.32,95%置信区间[CI]:3.71-121.6;p=0.0001)和早期使用(OR=10.56,95%CI:1.90-58.5;p=0.005)表明,这种治疗方案与更高的死亡率显著相关。
严重钝性创伤后复苏时使用血管加压药和大剂量使用可能与死亡率增加有关。尽管在复苏这些患者时输注血液制品的量往往会增加,但应考虑早期停止使用血管加压药。