Erik S. DeSoucy

BACKGROUND: The rarity of renal trauma limits its study and the strength of evidence-based guidelines. Although management of renal injuries has shifted toward a nonoperative approach, nephrectomy remains the most common intervention for high-grade renal trauma (HGRT). We aimed to describe the contemporary management of HGRT in the United States and also evaluate clinical factors associated with nephrectomy after HGRT. METHODS: From 2014 to 2017, data on HGRT (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades III-V) were collected from 14 participating Level-1 trauma centers. Data were gathered on demographics, injury characteristics, management, and short-term outcomes. Management was classified into three groups-expectant, conservative/minimally invasive, and open operative. Descriptive statistics were used to report management of renal trauma. Univariate and multivariate logistic mixed effect models with clustering by facility were used to look at associations between proposed risk factors and nephrectomy. RESULTS: A total of 431 adult HGRT were recorded; 79% were male, and mechanism of injury was blunt in 71%. Injuries were graded as III, IV, and V in 236 (55%), 142 (33%), and 53 (12%), respectively. Laparotomy was performed in 169 (39%) patients. Overall, 300 (70%) patients were managed expectantly and 47 (11%) underwent conservative/minimally invasive management. Eighty-four (19%) underwent renal-related open operative management with 55 (67%) of them undergoing nephrectomy. Nephrectomy rates were 15% and 62% for grades IV and V, respectively. Penetrating injuries had significantly higher American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades and higher rates of nephrectomy. In multivariable analysis, only renal injury grade and penetrating mechanism of injury were significantly associated with undergoing nephrectomy. CONCLUSION: Expectant and conservative management is currently utilized in 80% of HGRT; however, the rate of nephrectomy remains high. Clinical factors, such as surrogates of hemodynamic instability and metabolic acidosis, are associated with nephrectomy for HGRT; however, higher renal injury grade and penetrating trauma remain the strongest associations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III; Therapeutic study, level IV.

Members of the family Halobacteriaceae in the domain Archaea are obligate extreme halophiles. They occupy a variety of hypersaline environments, and their cellular biochemistry functions in a nearly saturated salty milieu. Despite extensive study, a detailed analysis of their growth kinetics is missing. To remedy this, Arrhenius plots for 14 type species of the family were generated. These organisms had maximum growth temperatures ranging from 49 to 58 degrees C. Nine of the organisms exhibited a single temperature optimum, while five grew optimally at more than one temperature. Generation times at these optimal temperatures ranged from 1.5 h (Haloterrigena turkmenica) to 3.0 h (Haloarcula vallismortis and Halorubrum saccharovorum). All shared an inflection point at 31 +/- 4 degrees C, and the temperature characteristics for 12 of the 14 type species were nearly parallel. The other two species (Natronomonas pharaonis and Natronorubrum bangense) had significantly different temperature characteristics, suggesting that the physiology of these strains is different. In addition, these data show that the type species for the family Halobacteriaceae share similar growth kinetics and are capable of much faster growth at higher temperatures than those previously reported.

OBJECTIVES: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an emerging technology to augment proximal blood pressure during the resuscitation of patients with noncompressible torso hemorrhage. Currently, placement choice, supraceliac (Zone 1) versus infrarenal (Zone 3) aorta, depends on injury patterns, but remains a highly debated topic. We sought to compare the proximal hemodynamic support provided by Zone 1 versus Zone 3 REBOA placement and the degree of hemodynamic instability upon reperfusion following intervention. METHODS: Eighteen anesthetized swine underwent controlled hemorrhage of 25% total blood volume, followed by 45 minutes of Zone 1 REBOA, Zone 3 REBOA, or no intervention (control). They were then resuscitated with shed blood, aortic balloons were deflated, and 5 hours of critical care ensued prior to euthanasia. Physiologic parameters were recorded continuously, and blood was drawn for analysis at specified intervals. Significance was defined as p < 0.05. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between groups at baseline or during the initial 30 minutes of hemorrhage. During the intervention period, average proximal MAP was significantly greater in Zone 1 animals when compared with Zone 3 animals (127.9 ± 1.3 vs. 53.4 ± 1.1 mm Hg) and greater in Zone 3 animals when compared with control animals (42.9 ± 0.9 mm Hg). Lactate concentrations were significantly higher in Zone 1 animals (9.6 ± 0.4 mmol/L) when compared with Zone 3 animals (5.1 ± 0.3 mmol/L) and control animals (4.2 ± 0.8 mmol/L). CONCLUSIONS: In our swine model of hemorrhagic shock, Zone 3 REBOA provided minimal proximal hemodynamic support when compared with Zone 1 REBOA, albeit with less ischemic burden and instability upon reperfusion. In cases of impending hemodynamic collapse, Zone 1 REBOA placement may be more efficacious regardless of injury pattern, whereas Zone 3 should be reserved only for relatively stable patients with ongoing distal hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is effective at limiting hemorrhage from noncompressible sources and restoring but causes progressive distal ischemia, supraphysiologic pressures, and increased cardiac afterload. Endovascular variable aortic control (EVAC) addresses these limitations, while still controlling hemorrhage. Previous work demonstrated improved outcomes following a 90-minute intervention period in an uncontrolled hemorrhage model. The present study compares automated EVAC to REBOA over an occlusion period reflective of contemporary REBOA usage. METHODS: Following instrumentation, 12 Yorkshire-cross swine underwent controlled 25% hemorrhage, a 45-minute intervention period of EVAC or REBOA, and subsequent resuscitation with whole blood and critical care for the remainder of a 6-hour experiment. Hemodynamics were acquired continuously, and laboratory parameters were assessed at routine intervals. Tissue was collected for histopathologic analysis. RESULTS: No differences were seen in baseline parameters. During intervention, EVAC resulted in more physiologic proximal pressure augmentation compared with REBOA (101 vs. 129 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval [CI], 105-151 mm Hg; p = 0.04). During critical care, EVAC animals required less than half the amount of crystalloid (3,450 mL; 95% CI, 1,215-5,684 mL] vs. 7,400 mL [95% CI, 6,148-8,642 mL]; p < 0.01) and vasopressors (21.5 ng/kg [95% CI, 7.5-35.5 ng/kg] vs. 50.5 ng/kg [95% CI, 40.5-60.5 ng/kg]; p = 0.05) when compared with REBOA animals. Endovascular variable aortic control resulted in lower peak and final lactate levels. Endovascular variable aortic control animals had less aortic hyperemia from reperfusion with aortic flow rates closer to baseline (36 mL/kg per minute [95% CI, 30-44 mL/kg per minute] vs. 51 mL/kg per minute [95% CI, 41-61 mL/kg per minute]; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: For short durations of therapy, EVAC produces superior hemodynamics and less ischemic insult than REBOA in this porcine-controlled hemorrhage model, with improved outcomes during critical care. This study suggests EVAC is a viable strategy for in-hospital management of patients with hemorrhagic shock from noncompressible sources. Survival studies are needed to determine if these early differences persist over time.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged field care (PFC) is field medical care applied beyond doctrinal planning time-lines. As current and future medical operations must include deliberate and contingency planning for such events, data are lacking to support efforts. A case review was conducted to define the epidemiology, environment, and operational factors that affect PFC outcomes. METHODS: A survey distributed to US military medical providers solicited details of PFC encounters lasting more than 4 hours and included patient demographics, environmental descriptors, provider training, modes of transportation, injuries, mechanism of injury, vital signs, treatments, equipment and resources used, duration of PFC, and morbidity and mortality status on delivery to the next level of care. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze survey responses. RESULTS: Surveys from 54 patients treated during 41 missions were analyzed. The PFC provider was on scene at time of injury or illness for 40.7% (22/54) of cases. The environment was described as remote or austere for 96.3% (52/54) of cases. Enemy activity or weather also contributed to need for PFC in 37.0% (20/54) of cases. Care was provided primarily outdoors (37.0%; 20/54) and in hardened nonmedical structures (37.0%; 20/54) with 42.6% (23/54) of cases managed in two or more locations or transport platforms. Teleconsultation was obtained in 14.8% (8/54) of cases. The prehospital time of care ranged from 4 to 120 hours (median 10 hours), and five (9.3%) patients died prior to transport to next level of care. CONCLUSION: PFC in the prehospital setting is a vital area of military medicine about which data are sparse. This review was a novel initial analysis of recent US military PFC experiences, with descriptive findings that should prove helpful for future efforts to include defining unique skillsets and capabilities needed to effectively respond to a variety of PFC contingencies.