The Role of Angiographic Interventions in Life-Threatening Traumatic Maxillofacial Bleeding

J. Yu, J. Choi, K. Whang, J. Oh
{"title":"The Role of Angiographic Interventions in Life-Threatening Traumatic Maxillofacial Bleeding","authors":"J. Yu, J. Choi, K. Whang, J. Oh","doi":"10.32587/jnic.2023.00612","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Intravascular embolization is an effective treatment option for cases of trauma induced massive maxillofacial bleeding (MFB). However, a viable guideline for endovascular treatment of MFB has not been established yet. This article investigates on parameters to distinguish suitable candidates of endovascular embolization among trauma victims with MFB, and discusses factors related to the clinical outcomes. Methods: From January 2015 to December 2018, 24 massive MFB patients underwent tranas-femoral angiography, and 16 of them proceeded with endovascular embolization (embolization group) while the other 8 patients only received angiography as no extravasation was observed (non-embolization group). We compared laboratory values (hemoglobin, pH, lactate, base excess) and clinical factors (blood pressure, age, initial GCS, time interval from trauma to intervention) related to the massive blood loss between the 16 of embolization group and the 8 of non-embolization group. The treatment results of angiographic intervention and mortality related factors were also compared to investigate factors related to treatment outcome.Results: Compared with non-embolization group, the patients of embolization group has a trend of lower hemoglobin (7.9 ± 3.6 g/dL vs 11.6 ± 2.3 g/dL, p = 0.047), lower base excess (-14.73 vs -6.9, p = 0.002), and lower systolic & diastolic blood pressure (100.5mmHg vs 59.9mmHg, 66.0 mmHg vs 30.9mmHg, respectively, p < 0.05). The overall mortality rate was 66.7% (87.5% in embolization group, 25% in non-embolization group). In the embolization group, there was no significant difference in all clinical and laboratory values between survivors and non-survivors. Conclusion: This study suggests initial hemoglobin, base-excess and low blood pressure as possible indicators to distinguish potential beneficiaries of facial embolization among MFB victims. However, it failed to find the viable prognosis factors to predict the clinical outcome of the embolization. Larger-scale prospective studies are needed in the future.","PeriodicalId":356321,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurointensive Care","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurointensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32587/jnic.2023.00612","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Intravascular embolization is an effective treatment option for cases of trauma induced massive maxillofacial bleeding (MFB). However, a viable guideline for endovascular treatment of MFB has not been established yet. This article investigates on parameters to distinguish suitable candidates of endovascular embolization among trauma victims with MFB, and discusses factors related to the clinical outcomes. Methods: From January 2015 to December 2018, 24 massive MFB patients underwent tranas-femoral angiography, and 16 of them proceeded with endovascular embolization (embolization group) while the other 8 patients only received angiography as no extravasation was observed (non-embolization group). We compared laboratory values (hemoglobin, pH, lactate, base excess) and clinical factors (blood pressure, age, initial GCS, time interval from trauma to intervention) related to the massive blood loss between the 16 of embolization group and the 8 of non-embolization group. The treatment results of angiographic intervention and mortality related factors were also compared to investigate factors related to treatment outcome.Results: Compared with non-embolization group, the patients of embolization group has a trend of lower hemoglobin (7.9 ± 3.6 g/dL vs 11.6 ± 2.3 g/dL, p = 0.047), lower base excess (-14.73 vs -6.9, p = 0.002), and lower systolic & diastolic blood pressure (100.5mmHg vs 59.9mmHg, 66.0 mmHg vs 30.9mmHg, respectively, p < 0.05). The overall mortality rate was 66.7% (87.5% in embolization group, 25% in non-embolization group). In the embolization group, there was no significant difference in all clinical and laboratory values between survivors and non-survivors. Conclusion: This study suggests initial hemoglobin, base-excess and low blood pressure as possible indicators to distinguish potential beneficiaries of facial embolization among MFB victims. However, it failed to find the viable prognosis factors to predict the clinical outcome of the embolization. Larger-scale prospective studies are needed in the future.
血管造影干预在危及生命的创伤性颌面部出血中的作用
背景:血管内栓塞是创伤性颌面部大出血(MFB)的有效治疗方法。然而,血管内治疗MFB的可行指南尚未建立。本文探讨了在创伤性MFB患者中区分合适的血管内栓塞候选人的参数,并讨论了与临床结果相关的因素。方法:2015年1月至2018年12月,对24例大面积MFB患者行股动脉造影,其中16例行血管内栓塞(栓塞组),8例因未见外渗仅行血管造影(非栓塞组)。我们比较了栓塞组16例和非栓塞组8例与大出血相关的实验室值(血红蛋白、pH、乳酸、碱性过剩)和临床因素(血压、年龄、初始GCS、创伤至干预时间间隔)。并比较血管造影介入治疗结果及死亡率相关因素,探讨影响治疗结果的相关因素。结果:与未栓塞组相比,栓塞组患者血红蛋白降低(7.9±3.6 g/dL vs 11.6±2.3 g/dL, p = 0.047),基础过量降低(-14.73 vs -6.9, p = 0.002),收缩压和舒张压降低(100.5mmHg vs 59.9mmHg, 66.0 mmHg vs 30.9mmHg, p < 0.05)。总死亡率为66.7%(栓塞组87.5%,非栓塞组25%)。在栓塞组中,幸存者和非幸存者之间的所有临床和实验室值均无显著差异。结论:本研究提示,初始血红蛋白、碱基过剩和低血压可能是区分面部栓塞患者潜在受益者的指标。然而,没有找到可行的预后因素来预测栓塞的临床结果。未来需要更大规模的前瞻性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信