Objective: Hip fracture surgery in geriatric patients on anticoagulants may increase the risk for blood loss. Anticoagulation reversal may lower these risks; however, data on blood loss and transfusions are limited. The study purpose was to compare outcomes between hip fracture patients 1) not on anticoagulants 2) whose anticoagulants were reversed, and 3) whose anticoagulants were not reversed. Methods: This four-year retrospective cohort study at six Level 1 Trauma Centers enrolled geriatric patients (!65) with isolated hip fractures. The primary outcome was total hospital blood loss (ml). Secondary outcomes: hospital length of stay (HLOS) and volume of packed red blood cells (pRBC) transfusions (ml). Statistical analyses included: Fisher's, chi-squared, Kruskal-Wallis, linear mixed-effect and logistic regression. Bonferroni adjusted alpha ¼ 0.025. Results: Of the 459 patients, 189 (41%) were not on anticoagulants, 186 (41%) were reversed, and 84 (18%) were not reversed. The LS mean (SE) blood loss was 134 ml (12) for not reversed patients and 159 (17) for reversed patients; no significant difference compared to those not on anticoagulants [138 (12)], pdiff ¼ 0.14 and 0.83, respectively. The LS mean (SE) HLOS was significantly longer for the reversed patients, 7.7 (0.4) days, when compared to those not on anticoagulants, 6.8 (0.4), p ¼ 0.02, and when compared to those not reversed, 6.3 (0.6), p ¼ 0.01. There was no significant difference in pRBC transfusions. Conclusion: Not reversing anticoagulants for geriatric hip fractures was not associated with increased volume of blood loss or transfusions when compared to those reversed. Delayed surgery for anticoagulant reversal may be unnecessary and contributing to an increased HLOS.

BackgroundMortality from hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures remains high. Guidelines offer varying care approaches including the use of pelvic packing (PP), which was recently adopted for potential control of bleeding for this condition. However, the implementation of PP is uncertain as the debate on the optimal resuscitation strategy, angioembolization or PP continues. The study was designed to assess current practices among level 1 trauma centers in the US in regard to PP treatment for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was created to assess when to apply PP, application approach, and the respondent’s anecdotal perception on safety and effectiveness. Trauma Medical Directors at 158 US level 1 trauma centers were sent biweekly email invitations for 3 months. Participants were allowed to skip questions for any reason. The study hypothesis was that PP practices vary by US census bureau region, annual trauma admissions, and length of time in years since each trauma center received their respective level 1 trauma center designation.ResultsTwenty-five percent (40/158) of trauma medical directors participated and 75% (118/158) of the trauma medical directors did not participate. Of those who took the survey, 36/40 (90%) completed the survey and 4/40 (10%) partially completed the survey. Only 36 trauma medical directors responded on their perception of safety and effectiveness; 72% (26/36) of participants perceived PP as safe, whereas only a third (12/36) of participants perceived PP as effective. There were 25 trauma medical directors who provided the sequence of treatment modalities utilized at their level 1 trauma center, 76% (19/25) of participants reported that PP is utilized as the third or fourth priority. None of the participating level 1 trauma centers reported a preference towards utilization of PP as the first priority treatment. Half of the participants reported a preference towards applying PP only as a last resort to control hemorrhage. Northeastern and Western level 1 trauma centers were significantly more likely than Midwestern and Southern level 1 trauma centers to have reported application of PP to all hemodynamically unstable patients (p = 0.05). Midwestern, Southern, and Western level 1 trauma centers were significantly more likely to have perceived PP as safe than Northeastern level 1 trauma centers (p = 0.04). All low-volume and 38% high-volume level 1 trauma centers perceived PP to increase infection risks, (p = 0.03). We observed no association between the length of time each trauma center was designated a level 1 trauma center, and all participant responses.ConclusionControversy and varying anecdotal perception regarding safety and effectiveness of PP prevails among trauma medical directors at level 1 trauma centers in the US.

No abstract