SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Siracuse JJ, Farber A, Cheng TW, Jones DW, Kalesan B. J. Vasc. Surg. 2020; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Affiliation

Department of Medicine, Center for Clinical Translational Epidemiology and Comparative Effectiveness Research, Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2020, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.jvs.2019.12.036

PMID

32115320

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Firearm injuries have traditionally been associated with worse outcomes compared with other types of penetrating trauma. Lower extremity trauma with vascular injury is a common presentation at many centers. Our goal was to compare firearm and non-firearm lower extremity penetrating injuries requiring vascular repair.

METHODS: We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample from 2010 to 2014 for all penetrating lower extremity injuries requiring vascular repair based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes. Our primary outcomes were in-hospital lower extremity amputation and death.

RESULTS: We identified 19,494 patients with lower extremity penetrating injuries requiring vascular repair-15,727 (80.7%) firearm injuries and 3767 (19.3%) non-firearm injuries. The majority of patients were male (91%), and intent was most often assault/legal intervention (64.3%). In all penetrating injuries requiring vascular repair, the majority (72.9%) had an arterial injury and 43.8% had a venous injury. Location of vascular injury included iliac (19.3%), femoral-popliteal (60%), and tibial (13.2%) vascular segments. Interventions included direct vascular repair (52.1%), ligation (22.1%), bypass (19.4%), and endovascular procedures (3.6%). Patients with firearm injuries were more frequently younger, black, male, and on Medicaid, with lower household income, intent of assault or legal action, and two most severe injuries in the same body region (P <.0001 for all). Firearm injuries compared with non-firearm injuries were more often reported to be arterial (75.5% vs 61.9%), to involve iliac (20.6% vs 13.7%) and femoral-popliteal vessels (64.7% vs 39.9%), to undergo endovascular repair (4% vs 2.1%), and to have a bypass (22.5% vs 6.5%; P <.05 for all). Firearm-related in-hospital major amputation (3.3% vs 0.8%; P =.001) and mortality (7.6% vs 4.2%; P =.001) were higher compared with non-firearm penetrating trauma. Multivariable analysis showed that injury by a firearm source was independently associated with postoperative major amputation (odds ratio, 4.78; 95% confidence interval, 2.07-11.01; P <.0001) and mortality (odds ratio, 1.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-2.65; P =.01).

CONCLUSIONS: Firearm injury is associated with a higher rate of amputation and mortality compared with non-firearm injuries of the lower extremity requiring vascular repair. These data can continue to guide public health discussions about morbidity and mortality from firearm injury.

Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.


Language: en

Keywords

Amputation; Firearm; Injury; Penetrating; Trauma; Vascular

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print