BACKGROUND:Outcomes following pancreatic trauma have not improved significantly over the past two decades. A 2013 Western Trauma Association algorithm highlighted emerging data that might improve the diagnosis and management of high-grade pancreatic injuries (HGPIs; grades III-V). We hypothesized that the use of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, pancreatic duct stenting, operative drainage versus resection, and nonoperative management of HGPIs increased over time. METHODS:Multicenter retrospective review of diagnosis, management, and outcomes of adult pancreatic injuries from 2010 to 2018 was performed. Data were analyzed by grade and time period (PRE, 2010(PRE, -2013 POST, 2014 POST, -2018 using various statistical tests where appropriate. RESULTS:Thirty-two centers reported data on 515 HGPI patients. A total of 270 (53%) had penetrating trauma, and 58% went directly to the operating room without imaging. Eighty-nine (17%) died within 24 hours. Management and outcomes of 426 24-hour survivors were evaluated. Agreement between computed tomography and operating room grading was 38%. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography use doubled in grade IV/V injuries over time but was still low.Overall HGPI treatment and outcomes did not change over time. Resection was performed in 78% of grade III injuries and remained stable over time, while resection of grade IV/V injuries trended downward (56% to 39%, p = 0.11). Pancreas-related complications (PRCs) occurred more frequently in grade IV/V injuries managed with drainage versus resection (61% vs. 32%, p = 0.0051), but there was no difference in PRCs for grade III injuries between resection and drainage.Pancreatectomy closure had no impact on PRCs. Pancreatic duct stenting increased over time in grade IV/V injuries, with 76% used to treat PRCs. CONCLUSION:Intraoperative and computed tomography grading are different in the majority of HGPI cases. Resection is still used for most patients with grade III injuries; however, drainage may be a noninferior alternative. Drainage trended upward for grade IV/V injuries, but the higher rate of PRCs calls for caution in this practice.

Background: Immunothrombosis and coagulopathy in the lung microvasculature may lead to lung injury and disease progression in coronavirus disease 2019 .We aim to identify biomarkers of coagulation, endothelial function, and fibrinolysis that are associated with disease severity and may have prognostic potential. Methods:We performed a single-center prospective study of 14 adult COVID-19(+) intensive care unit patients who were age-and sex-matched to 14 COVID-19(−) intensive care unit patients, and healthy controls. Daily blood draws, clinical data, and patient characteristics were collected. Baseline values for 10 biomarkers of interest were compared between the three groups, and visualized using Fisher's linear discriminant function. Linear repeated-measures mixed models were used to screen biomarkers for associations with mortality. Selected biomarkers were further explored and entered into an unsupervised longitudinal clustering machine learning algorithm to identify trends and targets that may be used for future predictive modelling efforts.Results: Elevated D-dimer was the strongest contributor in distinguishing COVID-19 status; however, D-dimer was not associated with survival. Variable selection identified clot lysis time, and antigen levels of soluble thrombomodulin (sTM), plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), and plasminogen as biomarkers associated with death.Longitudinal multivariate k-means clustering on these biomarkers alone identified two clusters of COVID-19(+) patients: low (30%) and high (100%) mortality groups. Biomarker trajectories that characterized the high mortality cluster were higher clot lysis times (inhibited fibrinolysis), higher sTM and PAI-1 levels, and lower plasminogen levels. Conclusions: Longitudinal trajectories of clot lysis time, sTM, PAI-1, and plasminogen may have predictive ability for mortality in COVID-19.| 1547 JUNEJA Et Al.

INTRODUCTION:Current guidelines recommend nonoperative management (NOM) of low-grade (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale Grade I-II) pancreatic injuries (LGPIs), and drainage rather than resection for those undergoing operative management, but they are based on low-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to review the contemporary management and outcomes of LGPIs and identify risk factors for morbidity. METHODS:Multicenter retrospective review of diagnosis, management, and outcomes of adult pancreatic injuries from 2010 to 2018. The primary outcome was pancreas-related complications (PRCs). Predictors of PRCs were analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS:Twenty-nine centers submitted data on 728 patients with LGPI (76% men; mean age, 38 years; 37% penetrating; 51% Grade I; median Injury Severity Score, 24). Among 24-hour survivors, definitive management was NOM in 31%, surgical drainage alone in 54%, resection in 10%, and pancreatic debridement or suturing in 5%. The incidence of PRCs was 21% overall and was 42% after resection, 26% after drainage, and 4% after NOM. On multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for PRC were other intraabdominal injury (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.16-15.28), low volume (OR, 2.88; 1.65, 5.06), and penetrating injury (OR, 3.42; 95% CI, 1.80-6.58). Resection was very close to significance (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.97-4.34) (p = 0.0584). CONCLUSION:The incidence of PRCs is significant after LGPIs. Patients who undergo pancreatic resection have PRC rates equivalent to patients resected for high-grade pancreatic injuries. Those who underwent surgical drainage had slightly lower PRC rate, but only 4% of those who underwent NOM had PRCs. In patients with LGPIs, resection should be avoided. The NOM strategy should be used whenever possible and studied prospectively, particularly in penetrating trauma.

BACKGROUND:The impact of injury mechanism on outcomes of pancreatic trauma has not been well studied, and current guidelines do not differentiate recommendations for blunt and penetrating injuries. The purpose of this study was to analyze interventions and outcomes as they relate to mechanism. We hypothesized that penetrating pancreatic trauma results in greater morbidity than blunt trauma because of more frequent operative exploration without imaging and thus more aggressive surgical management. METHODS:Secondary analysis of a multicenter retrospective review of pancreatic injuries in patients 15 years and older from 2010 to 2018 was performed. Deaths within 24 hours of admission were excluded from analysis of the primary outcome, pancreas-related complications (PRCs). Data were analyzed by injury mechanism using various statistical tests where appropriate. RESULTS:Thirty-three centers reported on 1,240 patients (44% penetrating). Penetrating trauma patients were twice as likely to undergo resection (45% vs. 23%) and suffer PRCs (39% vs. 20%). However, differences varied widely based on injury grade and management. There were fewer resections and more nonoperative management in blunt grades I to III injury. Pancreas-related complications occurred in 40% of high-grade injuries with no difference between mechanisms and in 40% of patients after resection, regardless of mechanism or injury grade. High-grade pancreatic injury (odds ratio [OR], 2.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-3.67), penetrating injury (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.31-3.05), and management in a low-volume center (i.e., five or fewer cases/ year) (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.16-2.35) were independent predictors of PRCs. CONCLUSION:Management of grades I to III, but not grades IV/V, pancreatic injuries varies based on mechanism. Penetrating injury is an independent risk factor for PRCs, but main pancreatic duct injury and resection are associated with high rates of PRCs regardless of the injury mechanism. Resection appears to offer better outcomes for grade IV/V injuries, and grade I and II injuries should be managed nonoperatively.