Outcomes and costs in splenectomy after failed splenic arterial embolization for blunt splenic injury

IF 1.4 Q3 SURGERY
Nam Yong Cho BS , Bill Kwon MD , Esteban Aguayo MD , Zeyu Liu BS , Areti Tillou MD , Peyman Benharash MD
{"title":"Outcomes and costs in splenectomy after failed splenic arterial embolization for blunt splenic injury","authors":"Nam Yong Cho BS ,&nbsp;Bill Kwon MD ,&nbsp;Esteban Aguayo MD ,&nbsp;Zeyu Liu BS ,&nbsp;Areti Tillou MD ,&nbsp;Peyman Benharash MD","doi":"10.1016/j.sopen.2025.06.011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Splenic injury (BSI) is present in nearly 45 % of abdominal blunt trauma cases in the US and splenic artery embolization (SAE) has been increasingly utilized to manage BSI in recent years. However, SAE failure necessitating delayed splenectomy remains a critical concern with significant implications for patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing the 2016–2021 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Adult patients (≥18 years) with BSI undergoing SAE or splenectomy were included. Early embolization was defined as SAE within 48 h of admission. Failure of SAE (FE) was defined as splenectomy following unsuccessful SAE during the index hospitalization or within 30 days post-discharge. Multivariable regression models were developed to assess the association of FE with in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), and costs.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 44,750 included patients, 17,921 (40.0 %) underwent SAE as an initial operative approach. Rates of failed embolization remained stable over the study period (2016: 8.1 % vs 2021: 9.4 %, nptrend = 0.86), as did mortality following FE (2016: 1.9 % vs 2021: 1.3 %, nptrend = 0.05). After risk adjustment, early embolization was associated with reduced odds of FE (AOR 0.78, 95%CI 0.64–0.95). FE was associated with significantly increased odds of mortality (AOR 2.52, 95 % CI 1.86–3.41), prolonged LOS by 4.8 days (95 % CI 4.0–5.5), and increased hospitalization costs by $27,600 (95 % CI $24,400-30,900).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Despite growing SAE utilization, its failure rate remains stable with FE being associated with inferior clinical and financial outcomes. Improve patient selection, increased availability of embolization and providing early embolization in select cases may enhance SAE outcomes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74892,"journal":{"name":"Surgery open science","volume":"27 ","pages":"Pages 61-67"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgery open science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589845025000612","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Splenic injury (BSI) is present in nearly 45 % of abdominal blunt trauma cases in the US and splenic artery embolization (SAE) has been increasingly utilized to manage BSI in recent years. However, SAE failure necessitating delayed splenectomy remains a critical concern with significant implications for patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing the 2016–2021 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Adult patients (≥18 years) with BSI undergoing SAE or splenectomy were included. Early embolization was defined as SAE within 48 h of admission. Failure of SAE (FE) was defined as splenectomy following unsuccessful SAE during the index hospitalization or within 30 days post-discharge. Multivariable regression models were developed to assess the association of FE with in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), and costs.

Results

Of 44,750 included patients, 17,921 (40.0 %) underwent SAE as an initial operative approach. Rates of failed embolization remained stable over the study period (2016: 8.1 % vs 2021: 9.4 %, nptrend = 0.86), as did mortality following FE (2016: 1.9 % vs 2021: 1.3 %, nptrend = 0.05). After risk adjustment, early embolization was associated with reduced odds of FE (AOR 0.78, 95%CI 0.64–0.95). FE was associated with significantly increased odds of mortality (AOR 2.52, 95 % CI 1.86–3.41), prolonged LOS by 4.8 days (95 % CI 4.0–5.5), and increased hospitalization costs by $27,600 (95 % CI $24,400-30,900).

Conclusions

Despite growing SAE utilization, its failure rate remains stable with FE being associated with inferior clinical and financial outcomes. Improve patient selection, increased availability of embolization and providing early embolization in select cases may enhance SAE outcomes.

Abstract Image

钝性脾损伤脾动脉栓塞失败后脾切除术的结果和费用
背景:在美国,近45%的腹部钝性创伤病例存在脾损伤(BSI),近年来脾动脉栓塞(SAE)越来越多地用于治疗BSI。然而,SAE失败需要延迟脾切除术仍然是一个关键问题,对患者预后和医疗资源利用具有重要影响。方法利用2016-2021年全国再入院数据库进行回顾性队列研究。包括接受SAE或脾切除术的成年BSI患者(≥18岁)。早期栓塞定义为入院48小时内的SAE。脾切除术失败(FE)定义为在住院期间或出院后30天内脾切除术失败。建立了多变量回归模型来评估FE与住院死亡率、住院时间(LOS)和费用的关系。结果在纳入的44,750例患者中,17,921例(40.0%)接受了SAE作为初始手术入路。在研究期间,栓塞失败率保持稳定(2016年:8.1%,2021年:9.4%,nptrend = 0.86),栓塞后死亡率也保持稳定(2016年:1.9%,2021年:1.3%,nptrend = 0.05)。风险调整后,早期栓塞与FE发生率降低相关(AOR 0.78, 95%CI 0.64-0.95)。FE与死亡率显著增加(AOR 2.52, 95% CI 1.86-3.41)、生存期延长4.8天(95% CI 4.0-5.5)以及住院费用增加27,600美元(95% CI 24,400-30,900美元)相关。结论:尽管SAE的应用越来越多,但其失败率保持稳定,FE与较差的临床和财务结果相关。改善患者选择,增加栓塞的可用性,并在选定的病例中提供早期栓塞可能会提高SAE的预后。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
66 days
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信