Laura J. Moore

A Clinical Series of Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta for Hemorrhage Control and Resuscitation

BACKGROUND A requirement for improved methods of hemorrhage control and resuscitation along with the translation of endovascular specialty skills has resulted in reappraisal of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for end-stage shock. The objective of this report was to describe implementation of REBOA in civilian trauma centers. METHODS Descriptive case series of REBOA (December 2012 to March 2013) used in scenarios of end-stage hemorrhagic shock at the University of Maryland, R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, Baltimore, Maryland, and Herman Memorial Hospital, The Texas Trauma Institute, Houston, Texas. RESULTS REBOA was performed by trauma and acute care surgeons for blunt (n = 4) and penetrating (n = 2) mechanisms. Three cases were REBOA in the descending thoracic aorta (Zone I) and three in the infrarenal aorta (Zone III). Mean (SD) systolic blood pressure at the time of REBOA was 59 (27) mm Hg, and mean (SD) base deficit was 13 (5). Arterial access was accomplished using both direct cutdown (n = 3) and percutaneous (n = 3) access to the common femoral artery. REBOA resulted in a mean (SD) increase in blood pressure of 55 (20) mm Hg, and the mean (SD) aortic occlusion time was 18 (34) minutes. There were no REBOA-related complications, and there was no hemorrhage-related mortality. CONCLUSION REBOA is a feasible and effective means of proactive aortic control for patients in end-stage shock from blunt and penetrating mechanisms. With available technology, this method of resuscitation can be performed by trauma and acute care surgeons who have benefited from instruction on a limited endovascular skill set. Future work should be aimed at devices that allow easy, fluoroscopy-free access and studies to define patients most likely to benefit from this procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level V.

The AAST prospective Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery (AORTA) registry: Data on contemporary utilization and outcomes of aortic occlusion and resuscitative balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA)

INTRODUCTION Aortic occlusion (AO) for resuscitation in traumatic shock remains controversial. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) offers an emerging alternative. METHODS The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery registry prospectively identified trauma patients requiring AO from eight ACS Level 1 centers. Presentation, intervention, and outcome variables were collected and analyzed to compare REBOA and open AO. RESULTS From November 2013 to February 2015, 114 AO patients were captured (REBOA, 46; open AO, 68); 80.7% were male, and 62.3% were blunt injured. Aortic occlusion occurred in the emergency department (73.7%) or the operating room (26.3%). Hemodynamic improvement after AO was observed in 62.3% [REBOA, 67.4%; open OA, 61.8%); 36.0% achieving stability (systolic blood pressure consistently >90 mm Hg, >5 minutes); REBOA, 22 of 46 (47.8%); open OA, 19 of 68 (27.9%); p =0.014]. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) access was femoral cut-down (50%); US guided (10.9%) and percutaneous without imaging (28.3%). Deployment was achieved in Zones I (78.6%), II (2.4%), and III (19.0%). A second AO attempt was required in 9.6% [REBOA, 2 of 46 (4.3%); open OA, 9 of 68 (13.2%)]. Complications of REBOA were uncommon (pseudoaneurysm, 2.1%; embolism, 4.3%; limb ischemia, 0%). There was no difference in time to successful AO between REBOA and open procedures (REBOA, 6.6 ± 5.6 minutes; open OA, 7.2 ± 15.1; p = 0.842). Overall survival was 21.1% (24 of 114), with no significant difference between REBOA and open AO with regard to mortality [REBOA, 28.2% (13 of 46); open OA, 16.1% (11 of 68); p = 0.120]. CONCLUSION Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta has emerged as a viable alternative to open AO in centers that have developed this capability. Further maturation of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Aortic Occlusion for Resuscitation in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery database is required to better elucidate optimal indications and outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Implementation of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta as an alternative to resuscitative thoracotomy for noncompressible truncal hemorrhage

BACKGROUND Hemorrhage remains the leading cause of death in trauma patients. Proximal aortic occlusion, usually performed by direct aortic cross-clamping via thoracotomy, can provide temporary hemodynamic stability, permitting definitive injury repair. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) uses a minimally invasive, transfemoral balloon catheter, which is rapidly inserted retrograde and inflated for aortic occlusion, and may control inflow and allow time for hemostasis. We compared resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic cross-clamping (RT) with REBOA in trauma patients in profound hemorrhagic shock. METHODS Trauma registry data was used to compare all patients undergoing RT or REBOA during an 18-month period from two Level 1 trauma centers. RESULTS There was no difference between RT (n = 72) and REBOA groups (n = 24) in terms of demographics, mechanism of injury, or Injury Severity Scores (ISSs). There was no difference in chest and abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores between the groups. However, the RT patients had lower extremity AIS score as compared with REBOA patients (1.5 [0–3] vs. 4 [3–4], p < 0.001). Of the 72 RT patients, 45 (62.5%) died in the emergency department, 6 (8.3%) died in the operating room, and 14 (19.4%) died in the intensive care unit. Of the 24 REBOA patients, 4 (16.6%) died in the emergency department, 3 (12.5%) died in the operating room, and 8 (33.3%) died in the intensive care unit. In comparing location of death between the RT and REBOA groups, there were a significantly higher number of deaths in the emergency department among the RT patients as compared with the REBOA patients (62.5% vs. 16.7%, p < 0.001). REBOA had fewer early deaths and improved overall survival as compared with RT (37.5% vs. 9.7%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION REBOA is feasible and controls noncompressible truncal hemorrhage in trauma patients in profound shock. Patients undergoing REBOA have improved overall survival and fewer early deaths as compared with patients undergoing RT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic study, level IV.

Validation of a screening tool for the early identification of sepsis.

BACKGROUND Sepsis is the leading cause of mortality in noncoronary intensive care units. Recent evidence based guidelines outline strategies for the management of sepsis and studies have shown that early implementation of these guidelines improves survival. We developed an extensive logic-based sepsis management protocol; however, we found that early recognition of sepsis was a major obstacle to protocol implementation. To improve this, we developed a three-step sepsis screening tool with escalating levels of decision making. We hypothesized that aggressive screening for sepsis would improve early recognition of sepsis and decrease sepsis-related mortality by insuring early appropriate interventions. METHODS Patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit were screened twice daily by our nursing staff. The initial screen assesses the systemic inflammatory response syndrome parameters (heart rate, temperature, white blood cell count, and respiratory rate) and assigns a numeric score (0-4) for each. Patients with a score of > or = 4 screened positive proceed to the second step of the tool in which a midlevel provider attempts to identify the source of infection. If the patients screens positive for both systemic inflammatory response syndrome and an infection, the intensivist was notified to determine whether to implement our sepsis protocol. RESULTS Over 5 months, 4,991 screens were completed on 920 patients. The prevalence of sepsis was 12.2%. The screening tool yielded a sensitivity of 96.5%, specificity of 96.7%, a positive predictive value of 80.2%, and a negative predictive value of 99.5%. In addition, sepsis-related mortality decreased from 35.1% to 23.3%. CONCLUSIONS The three step sepsis screening tool is a valid tool for the early identification of sepsis. Implementation of this tool and our logic-based sepsis protocol has decreased sepsis-related mortality in our SICU by one third.

The epidemiology of sepsis in general surgery patients

BACKGROUND Sepsis is increasing in hospitalized patients. Our purpose is to describe its current epidemiology in a general surgery (GS) intensive care unit (ICU) where patients are routinely screened and aggressively treated for sepsis by an established protocol. METHODS Our prospective, Institutional Review Board-approved sepsis research database was queried for demographics, biomarkers reflecting organ dysfunction, and mortality. Patients were grouped as sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock using refined consensus criteria. Data are compared by analysis of variance, Students t test, and χ test (p<0.05 significant). RESULTS During 24 months ending September 2009, 231 patients (aged 59 years ± 3 years; 43% men) were treated for sepsis. The abdomen was the source of infection in 69% of patients. Several baseline biomarkers of organ dysfunction (BOD) correlated with sepsis severity including lactate, creatinine, international normalized ratio, platelet count, and d-dimer. Direct correlation with mortality was noted with particular baseline BODs including beta natriuretic peptide, international normalized ratio, platelet count, aspartate transaminase, alanine aminotransferase, and total bilirubin. Most patients present with severe sepsis (56%) or septic shock (26%) each with increasing multiple BODs. Septic shock has prohibitive mortality rate (36%), and those who survive septic shock have prolonged ICU stays. CONCLUSION In general surgery ICU patients, sepsis is predominantly caused by intra-abdominal infection. Multiple BODs are present in severe sepsis and septic shock but are notably advanced in septic shock. Despite aggressive sepsis screening and treatment, septic shock remains a morbid condition.

Acute kidney injury is surprisingly common and a powerful predictor of mortality in surgical sepsis.

BACKGROUND Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and often catastrophic complication in hospitalized patients; however, the impact of AKI in surgical sepsis remains unknown. We used Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, End stage (RIFLE) consensus criteria to define the incidence of AKI in surgical sepsis and characterize the impact of AKI on patient morbidity and mortality. METHODS Our prospective, institutional review board-approved sepsis research database was retrospectively queried for the incidence of AKI by RIFLE criteria, excluding those with chronic kidney disease. Patients were grouped into sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock by refined consensus criteria. Data including demographics, baseline biomarkers of organ dysfunction, and outcomes were compared by Student’s t test and &khgr;2 test. Multivariable regression analysis was performed for the effect of AKI on mortality adjusting for age, sex, African-American race, elective surgery, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, septic shock versus severe sepsis, and sepsis source. RESULTS During the 36-month study period ending on December 2010, 246 patients treated for surgical sepsis were evaluated. AKI occurred in 67% of all patients, and 59%, 60%, and 88% of patients had sepsis, surgical sepsis, and septic shock, respectively. AKI was associated with Hispanic ethnicity, several baseline biomarkers of organ dysfunction, and a greater severity of illness. Patients with AKI had fewer ventilator-free and intensive care unit–free days and a decreased likelihood of discharge to home. Morbidity and mortality increased with severity of AKI, and AKI of any severity was found to be a strong predictor of hospital mortality (odds ratio, 10.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.28–87.35; p = 0.03) in surgical sepsis. CONCLUSION AKI frequently complicates surgical sepsis, and serves as a powerful predictor of hospital mortality in severe sepsis and septic shock. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic and epidemiologic study, level III.

Sepsis in general surgery: a deadly complication

BACKGROUND Sepsis is a deadly and potentially preventable complication. A better understanding of sepsis in general surgery patients is needed to help direct resources to those patients at highest risk for death from sepsis. METHODS We identified risk factors for sepsis in general surgery patients by using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database. RESULTS Analysis of the database identified 3 major risk factors for both the development of sepsis and death from sepsis in general surgery patients. These risk factors are age older than 60 years, need for emergency surgery, and the presence of comorbid conditions. CONCLUSIONS Risk factors for death from sepsis or septic shock in general surgery patients include age older than 60 years, need for emergency surgery, and the presence of preexisting comorbidities. These findings emphasize the need for early recognition through aggressive sepsis screening and rapid implementation of evidence-based interventions for sepsis and septic shock in general surgery patients with these risk factors.

Surgical sepsis and organ crosstalk: the role of the kidney.

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of hospitalized patients, and clinical outcomes remain poor despite advances in renal replacement therapy. The accepted pathophysiology of AKI in the setting of sepsis has evolved from one of simple decreased renal blood flow to one that involves a more complex interaction of intra-glomerular microcirculatory vasodilation combined with the local release of inflammatory mediators and apoptosis. Evidence from preclinical AKI models suggests that crosstalk occurs between kidneys and other organ systems via soluble and cellular inflammatory mediators and that this involves both the innate and adaptive immune systems. These interactions are reflected by genomic changes and abnormal rates of cellular apoptosis in distant organs including the lungs, heart, gut, liver, and central nervous system. The purpose of this article is to review the influence of AKI, particularly sepsis-associated AKI, on inter-organ crosstalk in the context of systemic inflammation and multiple organ failure (MOF).

Computer Protocol Facilitates Evidence-Based Care of Sepsis in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND Care of sepsis has been the focus of intense research and guideline development for more than two decades. With ongoing success of computer protocol (CP) technology and with publication of Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) guidelines, we undertook protocol development for management of sepsis of surgical intensive care unit patients in mid-2006. METHODS A sepsis protocol was developed and implemented in The Methodist Hospital (TMH) (Houston, TX) surgical intensive care unit (27 beds) together with a sepsis research database. We compare paper-protocol (PP) (2008) and CP (2009) performance and results of the SSC guideline performance improvement initiative (2005-2008). TMH surgical intensive care unit sepsis protocol was developed to implement best evidence and to standardize decision making among surgical intensivists, nurse practitioners, and resident physicians. RESULTS The 2008 and 2009 sepsis protocol cohorts had very similar number of patients, age, % male gender, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation scoring system II, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores. The 2008 PP patients had greater baseline lactate concentration consistent with greater mortality rate. Antibiotic agents were administered to 2009 CP cohort patients sooner than 2008 PP cohort patients. Both cohorts received similar volume of intravenous fluid boluses. Comparing 6-hour resuscitation bundle compliance, the 2009 CP cohort was substantially greater than SSC eighth quarter and 2008 PP cohorts (79% vs. 31% vs. 29%), and mortality rate was much less when using the CP (14% vs. 31% vs. 24%). CONCLUSIONS Our comprehensive sepsis protocol has enabled rapid and consistent implementation of evidence-based care, and, implemented as a bedside CP, contributed to decreased mortality rate for management of surgical sepsis.

Damage-control resuscitation increases successful nonoperative management rates and survival after severe blunt liver injury.

BACKGROUND Nonoperative multidisciplinary management for severe (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Grades IV and V) liver injury has been used for two decades. We have previously shown that Damage Control Resuscitation (DCR) using low-volume, balanced resuscitation improves survival of severely injured trauma patients; however, little attention has been paid to organ-specific outcomes. We wanted to determine if implementation of DCR has improved survival and successful nonoperative management after severe blunt liver injury. METHODS A retrospective study was performed on all adult trauma patients with severe blunt liver injury who were admitted from 2005 to 2011. Patients were divided into pre-DCR (2005–2008) and DCR (2009–2011) groups. Patients who died before leaving the emergency department (ED) were excluded. Outcomes (resuscitation products used, survival, and length of stay) were then compared by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS Between 2005 and 2011, 29,801 adult trauma patients were admitted, and 1,412 (4.7%) experienced blunt liver injury. Of these, 244 (17%) sustained Grade IV and V injuries, with 206 patients surviving to leave the ED. The pre-DCR group (2005–2008) was composed of 108 patients, and the DCR group (2009–2011) had 98 patients. The groups were not different in demographics as well as prehospital and ED vital signs or Injury Severity Score (ISS). No change in operative or interventional radiology techniques occurred in this time frame. The DCR cohort had an increase in successful nonoperative management (from 54% to 74%, p < 0.01) as well as a reduction in initial 24-hour packed red blood cell (median, from 13 U to 6.5 U; p < 0.01), plasma (median, from 13 U to 8 U; p < 0.01), and crystalloid (median, from 5,800 mL to 4,100 mL; p < 0.01) administration. The DCR treatment was associated with improved survival, from 73% to 94% (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION In patients with severe blunt liver injury, DCR was associated with less crystalloid and blood product use, a higher successful nonoperative management rate, and improved survival. Resuscitation technique may improve outcomes after severe liver injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic/care management, level III.