Unstable Hemodynamics is not Always Predictive of Failed Nonoperative Management in Blunt Splenic Injury.

BACKGROUND: The advanced technology of interventional radiology may contribute to a rapid and timely angioembolization for hemostasis. We hypothesized that unstable hemodynamics is no longer an absolute contraindication of nonoperative management (NOM) in blunt splenic injury patients using rapid angioembolization. METHODS: From January 2009 to December 2019, blunt splenic injury patients with unstable hemodynamics [initial pulse >120 beats/min or systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg] were included. Either emergency surgery or angioembolization was performed for hemostasis because of their unstable status. The characteristics of patients who underwent angioembolization or surgery were compared in each group (all patients, patients with hypotension, patients without response to resuscitation and hypotensive patients without response to resuscitation). RESULTS: A total of 73 patients were included in the current study. With respect to all patients, 68.5% (N = 50) of patients underwent NOM with angioembolization for hemostasis. Patients who underwent angioembolization for hemostasis had a significantly lower base deficit (5.3 ± 3.8 vs. 8.3 ± 5.2 mmol/L, p = 0.006) and a higher proportion of response to resuscitation (82.0% vs. 30.4%, p < 0.001) than did patients who underwent surgery. However, there was no significant difference in the proportion of hypotension (58.0% vs. 65.2%, p = 0.558) between these two groups. There were 44 patients with hypotension, and the angioembolization could be performed in 65.9% (N = 29) of them. Patients who underwent angioembolization had a significantly higher proportion of response to resuscitation than did patients who underwent surgery (89.7% vs. 33.3%, p < 0.001). In hypotensive patients without response to resuscitation (N = 13), 23.1% (N = 3) of the patients underwent angioembolization successfully. There was no significant difference in time to hemostasis procedure between patients who underwent angioembolization or surgery (24.7 ± 2.1 vs. 26.3 ± 16.7 min, p = 0.769). The demographics, vital signs, blood transfusion amount, injury severity, mortality rate and length of stay of patients who underwent angioembolization were not significantly different from patients who underwent surgery in each group. CONCLUSIONS: With a short preparation time of angioembolization, the NOM could be performed selectively for hemodynamically unstable patients with blunt splenic injury. The base deficit serves as an early detector of the requirement of surgical treatment.