RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Delta-9-tetraydrocannabinol (THC) usage is associated with venous thromboembolic events (VTE) in trauma patients. We hypothesized that THC â+ âtrauma patients would have less platelet inhibition than THC - patients using thromboelastography with platelet mapping (TEG-PM). METHODS: Results from initial TEG- PM assays and patient's UDS were reviewed between 2019 and 2023. Mean levels of arachidonic acid (AA) and adenosine diphosphate (ADP) percent inhibition were compared by THC status. RESULTS: 793 patients had TEG-PM and UDS data. Mean levels of arachidonic acid (AA) percentage inhibition were 32.6 â± â34.2. AA inhibition was lower for THC â+ âvs THC- patients (THC+ 23.9 â± â27.0 vs THC- 34.3 â± â35.3, P â< â0.001). There was no association between THC status and ADP inhibition (THC+ 32.5 â± â27.1 vs THC- 30.8 â± â28.4, P â= â0.536). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, our data are the first to suggest a clinically measurable increase in platelet reactivity in THC â+ âtrauma patients. More work is needed to determine if addition of aspirin to the chemoprophylaxis strategy for THC â+ âpatients would mitigate the known association of THC with VTE.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Blunt bowel and/or mesenteric injury requiring surgery presents a diagnostic challenge. Although computed tomography (CT) imaging is standard following blunt trauma, findings can be nonspecific. Most studies have focused on the diagnostic value of CT findings in identifying significant bowel and/or mesenteric injury (sBMI). Some studies have described scoring systems to assist with diagnosis. Little attention, has been given to radiologist interpretation of CT scans. This study compared the discriminative ability of scoring systems (BIPS and RAPTOR) with radiologist interpretation in identifying sBMI. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of trauma patients with suspected sBMI. CT images were reviewed in a blinded fashion to calculate BIPS and RAPTOR scores. Sensitivity and specificity were compared between BIPS, RAPTOR, and the admission CT report with respect to identifying sBMI. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-two patients were identified, 72 (44%) underwent laparotomy and 43 (26.5%) had sBMI. Sensitivity and specificity were: BIPS 49% and 87%, AUC 0.75 (0.67-0.81), P < 0.001; RAPTOR 46% and 82%, AUC 0.72 (0.64-0.79), P < 0.001; radiologist impression 81% and 71%, AUC 0.82(0.75-0.87), P < 0.001. The discriminative ability of the radiologist impression was higher than RAPTOR (P = 0.04) but not BIPS (P = 0.13). There was not a difference between RAPTOR vs. BIPS (P = 0.55). CONCLUSION: Radiologist interpretation of the admission CT scan was discriminative of sBMI. Although surgical vigilance, including evaluation of the CT images and patient, remains fundamental to early diagnosis, the radiologist's impression of the CT scan can be used in clinical practice to simplify the approach to patients with abdominal trauma.