4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Early vasopressor administration in pediatric blunt liver and spleen injury: An ATOMAC plus study

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY
卷 56, 期 3, 页码 500-505

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2020.07.007

关键词

Vasopressor; Pediadiatric trauma; Blunt trauma; Nonoperative management

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that receiving early vasopressor treatment in the pediatric trauma center emergency department was associated with an increased risk of death, but did not increase the risk of failure of nonoperative management.
Background: No prior studies have examined the outcomes of early vasopressor use in children sustaining blunt liver or spleen injury (BLSI). Methods: A planned secondary analysis of vasopressor use from a 10-center, prospective study of 1004 children with BLSI. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used to compare patients given vasopressors <48 h after injury to controls based on pretreatment factors. A logistic regression was utilized to assess survival associated with vasopressor initiation factors on mortality and nonoperative management (NOM) failure. Results: Of 1004 patients with BLSI, 128 patients were hypotensive in the Pediatric Trauma Center Emergency Department (ED); 65 total patients received vasopressors. Hypotension treated with vasopressors was associated with a sevenfold increase in mortality (AOR = 7.6 [p < 0.01]). When excluding patients first given vasopressors for cardiac arrest, the risk of mortality increased to 11-fold (AOR = 11.4[p- 0.01]). All deaths in patients receiving vasopressors occurred when started within the first 12 h after injury. Vasopressor administration at any time was not associated with NOM failure. Conclusion: After propensity matching, early vasopressor use for hypotension in the ED was associated with an increased risk of death, but did not increase the risk of failure of NOM. (C) 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据