Importance There is limited information about the effect of erythropoietin or a high transfusion threshold in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Objective To compare the effects of erythropoietin and two transfusion thresholds (7 and 10 g/dl) on neurological recovery after TBI. Design Randomized trial using a factorial design to test: i.) whether erythropoietin would fail to improve favorable outcomes by 20%, and ii.) whether a transfusion threshold of >10 g/dl would increase favorable outcomes without increasing complications. Setting Neurosurgical intensive care units of two Houston level 1 trauma centers Participants Between May 2006 and August 2012, 200 patients with closed head injury who were unable to follow commands were enrolled within 6 hours of injury; 102 patients received erythropoetin and 98 received placebo. Erythropoetin or placebo was initially dosed daily for 3 days and then weekly for 2 more weeks (n=74) and then the 24h and 48h doses were dropped for the remainder (n=126). Ninety-nine and 101 patients were assigned to the 7g/dl and 10g/dl transfusion thresholds. Intervention Intravenous erythropoietin 500 IU/kg or saline per dose. Transfusion threshold maintained with packed red blood cell transfusion. Main Outcome Glasgow Outcome Scale dichotomized as favorable (good recovery and moderate disability) and unfavorable (severe disability, vegetative, or dead) at 6 months post-injury. Results There was no erythropoeitin-transfusion threshold interaction. Compared to placebo (favorable outcome rate: 34/89 [38.2%]; 95%CI=28.2-49.1%), both erythropoetin groups were futile (first dosing regimen: 17/35 [48.6%]; 95%CI=31.4-66.0%, p=0.13, and second dosing regimen: 17/57 [29.8%]; 95%CI=18.4-43.4%, p<0.001). Favorable outcome rates were 37/87 (42.5%) and 31/94 (33.0%) in the 7 and 10 g/dl threshold groups (95%CI for the difference = − 0.05 to 0.25, p=0.28). There was a higher incidence of thromboembolic events in the 10 g/dl threshold group (22/101 [21.8%] vs. 8/99 [8.1%], p=0.009). Conclusions and Relevance In patients with closed head injury, neither the administration of erythropoietin nor maintaining hemoglobin concentration > 10 g/dl resulted in improved neurological outcome at 6 months and the 10 g/dl threshold was associated with a higher incidence of adverse events.. These findings do not support either approach in this setting.

Although there is an agreement that liver grafts from pediatric donors (PDs) should ideally be used for pediatric patients, there remain situations when these grafts are turned down for pediatric recipients and are then offered to adult recipients. The present study aimed to investigate the outcomes of using these grafts for liver transplantation (LT) in adult patients. Data from all patients undergoing LT between 2002 and 2014 were obtained from the United Network for Organ Sharing Standard Analysis and Research file. Adult recipients undergoing LT were divided into 2 groups: those receiving a pediatric liver graft (pediatric-to-adult group) and those receiving a liver graft from adult donors (adult-to-adult group). A separate subgroup analysis comparing the PDs used for adult recipients and those used for pediatric recipients was also performed. Patient and graft survival were not significantly different between pediatric-to-adult and adult-to-adult groups (P 5 0.08 and P 5 0.21, respectively). Hepatic artery thrombosis as the cause for graft loss was higher in the pediatric-to-adult group (3.6%) than the adult-to-adult group (1.9%; P < 0.001). A subanalysis looking at the pediatric-to-adult group found that patients with a predicted graft-torecipient weight ratio (GRWR) < 0.8 had a higher 90-day graft loss rate than those with a GRWR 0.8 (39% versus 9%; P < 0.001). PDs used for adult recipients had a higher proportion of donors with elevated aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase (20% vs. 12%; P < 0.001), elevated creatinine (11% vs. 4%; P < 0.001), donation after cardiac death donors (12% vs. 0.9%; P < 0.001), and were hepatitis B virus core positive (1% vs. 0.3%; P 5 0.002) than PDs used for pediatric recipients. In conclusion, acceptable patient and graft survival can be achieved with the use of pediatric liver grafts in adult recipients, when these grafts have been determined to be inappropriate for usage in the pediatric population.

Although the consequences of implantation of a large whole liver graft into a small recipient such as compression and compromise of graft perfusion are well known, no accepted measure to aid in donor-to-recipient size matching exists. Donor liver graft and recipient native liver weights as well as donor and recipient size and amount of ascites were investigated in 1953 patients who underwent liver transplantation using deceased donor grafts between January 2002 and July 2013. We used a previously described formula for liver resections (standardized total liver volume [sTLV] = -794.41 + 1267.28 × body surface area [m(2)]) for calculating sTLV, in the current cohort of deceased liver donors. Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) and graft survival were the primary outcome measures. The formula for calculating sTLV for liver resections was validated as an accurate predictor of liver volume in the current cohort of deceased liver donors (r(2) = 0.45; P < 0.001). A cutoff point of sTLV ratio ≥ 1.25 was determined through receiver operating characteristic curves, and patients were dichotomized into 2 groups. In the sTLV ratio ≥ 1.25 group, 50% of patients developed EAD compared to 25% of patients in the sTLV ratio < 1.25 group (P < 0.001). The proportion of patients developing graft failure within 90 days was 9.6% in the sTLV ratio ≥ 1.25 group and 5.4% in the sTLV ratio < 1.25 group (P = 0.045). This study validates the use of the sTLV for prediction of actual donor liver weight in the transplant setting. Using this formula, donors with a calculated sTLV size ratio ≥ 1.25 have an increased risk of EAD and therefore caution should be used when that value is exceeded. This adjusted size ratio can be used as a decision aid when considering donor and recipient matching with potential liver organ offers.

Blunt abdominal aortic injury (BAAI) is a rare and lethal injury requiring surgical management. Injury patterns can be complex and surgical strategy should accommodate specific case circumstances. Endovascular solutions appear appropriate and preferred in certain cases of BAAI, which, however, may not be applicable due to device limitations in regard to patient anatomy and limited operating room capability. However, endovascular therapy can be pursued with limited fluoroscopy capability and consumable availability providing a solution that is expeditious and effective for select cases of BAAI.