Damage control laparotomy utilization rates are highly variable among Level I trauma centers: Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios findings

BACKGROUND Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is intended to limit deleterious effects from trauma-induced coagulopathy. DCL has been associated with mortality reduction, but may increase complications including sepsis, abscess, respiratory failure, hernia, and gastrointestinal fistula. We hypothesized that (1) DCL incidence would vary between institutions; (2) mortality rates would vary with DCL rates; (3) standard DCL criteria of pH, international normalized ratio, temperature and major intra-abdominal vascular injury would not adequately capture all patients. METHODS Trauma patients at 12 Level 1 North American trauma centers were randomized based on transfusion ratios as described in the Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios trial. We analyzed outcomes after emergent laparotomy using a mixed-effects logistic model comparing DCL versus definitive surgical management with random effect for study site. Primary outcomes were 24-hour and 30-day mortality. RESULTS Three hundred twenty-nine patients underwent emergent laparotomy: 213 (65%) DCL and 116 (35%) definitive surgical management. DCL rates varied between institutions (33–83%), (p = 0.002). Median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was higher in the DCL group, 29 (interquartile range, 13–34) versus 21 (interquartile range, 22–41) (p < 0.001). Twenty-four-hour mortality was 19% with DCL versus 4% (p < 0.001); 30-day mortality was 28% with DCL versus 19% (p < 0.001). In a mixed-effects model, ISS and major intra-abdominal vascular injury were correlates of DCL (odds ratio [OR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.07 and OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.4–5.2). DCL was not associated with 30-day mortality (OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 0.97–5.60). Correlates included ISS (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02–1.09), PRBCs in 24 hours (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.18), and age (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01–1.06). No significant mortality difference was detected between institutions (p = 0.63). Sepsis and VAP occurred more frequently with DCL (p < 0.05). Eighty percent (135/213) of DCL patients met standard criteria. CONCLUSION Although DCL utilization varied significantly between institutions, there was no significant mortality difference between centers. This finding suggests tempering DCL use may not decrease mortality, but could decrease related complications. Level of Evidence Therapeutic study, level III.

[1]  B. Cotton,et al.  Trauma patients at risk for massive transfusion: the role of scoring systems and the impact of early identification on patient outcomes , 2012, Expert review of hematology.

[2]  C. Wade,et al.  Impact of closure at the first take back: complication burden and potential overutilization of damage control laparotomy. , 2011, The Journal of trauma.

[3]  David B Hoyt,et al.  Transfusion of plasma, platelets, and red blood cells in a 1:1:1 vs a 1:1:2 ratio and mortality in patients with severe trauma: the PROPPR randomized clinical trial. , 2015, JAMA.

[4]  N. Tai,et al.  Management and closure of the open abdomen after damage control laparotomy for trauma. A systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2016, Injury.

[5]  J. Asensio,et al.  Has evolution in awareness of guidelines for institution of damage control improved outcome in the management of the posttraumatic open abdomen? , 2004, Archives of surgery.

[6]  C. Fu,et al.  An outcome prediction model for exsanguinating patients with blunt abdominal trauma after damage control laparotomy: a retrospective study , 2014, BMC Surgery.

[7]  L. Stuke,et al.  Damage control resuscitation in combination with damage control laparotomy: a survival advantage. , 2010, The Journal of trauma.

[8]  J. Simmons,et al.  Impact of obesity in damage control laparotomy patients. , 2009, The Journal of trauma.

[9]  N. Salemis,et al.  Damage control surgery in the abdomen: an approach for the management of severe injured patients. , 2008, International journal of surgery.

[10]  P. Rhee,et al.  Damage control laparotomy: a vital tool once overused. , 2010, The Journal of trauma.

[11]  Lloyd G. Greenwald,et al.  Time to laparotomy for intra-abdominal bleeding from trauma does affect survival for delays up to 90 minutes. , 2002, The Journal of trauma.

[12]  C. Wade,et al.  Damage Control Resuscitation Is Associated With a Reduction in Resuscitation Volumes and Improvement in Survival in 390 Damage Control Laparotomy Patients , 2011, Annals of surgery.

[13]  C. Wade,et al.  Current use of damage-control laparotomy, closure rates, and predictors of early fascial closure at the first take-back. , 2011, The Journal of trauma.

[14]  M. Rotondo,et al.  'Damage control': an approach for improved survival in exsanguinating penetrating abdominal injury. , 1992, The Journal of trauma.

[15]  K. Laupland,et al.  To close or not to close, that is one of the questions? Perceptions of Trauma Association of Canada surgical members on the management of the open abdomen. , 2006, The Journal of trauma.

[16]  D. Bowley,et al.  A prospective observational study of abdominal injury management in contemporary military operations: damage control laparotomy is associated with high survivability and low rates of fecal diversion. , 2015, Annals of surgery.

[17]  A. May,et al.  Complications after 344 damage-control open celiotomies. , 2004, The Journal of trauma.

[18]  R. Cirocchi,et al.  Damage control surgery for abdominal trauma. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[19]  H H Stone,et al.  Management of the Major Coagulopathy with Onset during Laparotomy , 1983, Annals of surgery.

[20]  K. Inaba,et al.  Time to first take-back operation predicts successful primary fascial closure in patients undergoing damage control laparotomy. , 2014, Surgery.