Predictors of the need for angioembolization in blunt pelvic trauma.

IF 2.5 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open Pub Date : 2026-07-16 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1136/tsaco-2025-002100
Michele Fiorentino, Ruoying Li, Fei Ye, Rebecca Irlmeier, Rachel D Appelbaum
{"title":"Predictors of the need for angioembolization in blunt pelvic trauma.","authors":"Michele Fiorentino, Ruoying Li, Fei Ye, Rebecca Irlmeier, Rachel D Appelbaum","doi":"10.1136/tsaco-2025-002100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Vascular injury following blunt pelvic fractures is a major source of morbidity and mortality. Angioembolization has become the standard of care for patients with contrast extravasation (CE) on CT scan; however, there are patients without CE who have a vascular injury. We aimed to determine the predictors of the need for angioembolization in patients with blunt pelvic fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective case-control study of blunt trauma patients with pelvic fractures who underwent angiography by interventional radiology (IR) at a single institution from 2018 to 2023. Patients with CE on CT scan were compared with patients without CE to determine the risk factors for a positive angiogram. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the factors associated with having a positive angiogram.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>167 patients with blunt pelvic fractures underwent angiography: 120 with CE and 47 without CE on CT scan. Both groups were severely injured with a mean Injury Severity Score of 31; over 85% of patients requiring blood prior to angiography and 45% requiring massive transfusion protocol (MTP). There was no difference in rates of positive angiogram between patients with and without CE on CT scan (83% vs. 93%, p=0.08). Of the 47 patients without CE on their CT scan, 27 (57%) had active extravasation on angiography and an additional 12 (26%) had an injury requiring intervention. Initial systolic blood pressure, receiving blood prior to angiography, MTP activation, and CE on initial CT scan were not independently predictive of positive angiogram.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although CE on CT scan is often the initial trigger for IR consultation for angiography in trauma patients with pelvic fractures, there are patients without CE who have an injury requiring intervention. In trauma patients with concerns for ongoing hemodynamic instability, IR consultation is reasonable even without CE on initial CT scan.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Diagnostic test/criteria: level IV.</p>","PeriodicalId":23307,"journal":{"name":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","volume":"11 3","pages":"e002100"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13384162/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Trauma Surgery & Acute Care Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/tsaco-2025-002100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Vascular injury following blunt pelvic fractures is a major source of morbidity and mortality. Angioembolization has become the standard of care for patients with contrast extravasation (CE) on CT scan; however, there are patients without CE who have a vascular injury. We aimed to determine the predictors of the need for angioembolization in patients with blunt pelvic fractures.

Methods: We performed a retrospective case-control study of blunt trauma patients with pelvic fractures who underwent angiography by interventional radiology (IR) at a single institution from 2018 to 2023. Patients with CE on CT scan were compared with patients without CE to determine the risk factors for a positive angiogram. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the factors associated with having a positive angiogram.

Results: 167 patients with blunt pelvic fractures underwent angiography: 120 with CE and 47 without CE on CT scan. Both groups were severely injured with a mean Injury Severity Score of 31; over 85% of patients requiring blood prior to angiography and 45% requiring massive transfusion protocol (MTP). There was no difference in rates of positive angiogram between patients with and without CE on CT scan (83% vs. 93%, p=0.08). Of the 47 patients without CE on their CT scan, 27 (57%) had active extravasation on angiography and an additional 12 (26%) had an injury requiring intervention. Initial systolic blood pressure, receiving blood prior to angiography, MTP activation, and CE on initial CT scan were not independently predictive of positive angiogram.

Conclusion: Although CE on CT scan is often the initial trigger for IR consultation for angiography in trauma patients with pelvic fractures, there are patients without CE who have an injury requiring intervention. In trauma patients with concerns for ongoing hemodynamic instability, IR consultation is reasonable even without CE on initial CT scan.

Level of evidence: Diagnostic test/criteria: level IV.

钝性骨盆创伤需要血管栓塞的预测因素。
背景:钝性骨盆骨折后血管损伤是发病率和死亡率的主要来源。血管栓塞术已成为CT扫描造影剂外渗(CE)患者的标准治疗方法;然而,也有没有CE的患者有血管损伤。我们的目的是确定钝性骨盆骨折患者需要血管栓塞的预测因素。方法:我们对2018年至2023年在单一机构接受介入放射血管造影(IR)的钝性创伤骨盆骨折患者进行回顾性病例对照研究。将CT扫描上有CE的患者与没有CE的患者进行比较,以确定血管造影阳性的危险因素。进行多变量logistic回归分析以评估与血管造影阳性相关的因素。结果:167例钝性骨盆骨折患者行血管造影:CT扫描有CE 120例,无CE 47例。两组均为严重损伤,平均损伤严重程度评分为31分;超过85%的患者在血管造影前需要输血,45%的患者需要大量输血方案(MTP)。有CE和没有CE的患者在CT扫描上的血管造影阳性率没有差异(83%对93%,p=0.08)。在47例CT扫描未发现CE的患者中,27例(57%)血管造影显示有活动性外渗,另外12例(26%)有需要干预的损伤。初始收缩压、血管造影前接受血液、MTP激活和初始CT扫描CE不能独立预测血管造影阳性。结论:尽管CT扫描上的CE通常是骨盆骨折创伤患者血管造影IR咨询的初始触发因素,但也有一些没有CE的患者有损伤需要干预。对于担心持续血流动力学不稳定的创伤患者,即使在初始CT扫描中没有CE,也可以进行IR咨询。证据级别:诊断测试/标准:四级。
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
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
71
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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
小红书