BET 3: Peripheral metaraminol infusion in the emergency department

Three-part question In (adult patients presenting to the ED with sepsis resulting in persistent hypotension not responding to fluid replacement) is a (peripheral metaraminol infusion as effective as central catecholamine infusion) for (maintaining a blood pressure capable of effective organ perfusion)? Clinical scenario A previously fit and well 36-year-old male returns from a holiday to Greece 48 hours ago and presents to the ED complaining of headache, malaise and feeling generally unwell. While waiting to be seen, the patient’s headache rapidly worsens, he spikes a high temperature of 38.9°C, becomes increasingly agitated and starts vomiting. He is taken to a resuscitation cubicle and has a HR of 135 bpm and BP of 71/45 mm Hg. Examination of the patient reveals several small non-blanching petechiae. You manage the patient as suspected meningitis and commence appropriate sepsis management. After administrating 3 L of intravenous fluid, the patient remains with a systolic BP <80 mm Hg. The intensive care doctor informs you that they are trying to make a space available in the intensive treatment unit for this patient but are struggling to step anyone down and the patient must remain in the resuscitation department. The resuscitation nurse asks you to prescribe more fluid. You wonder whether a peripheral metaraminol infusion would be more effective at increasing arterial pressure and maintaining organ perfusion

3 Derivation and internal validation of a clinical decision rule to guide whole body computed tomography scanning in trauma.

There are no widely accepted validated clinical decision rules for the use of WBCT in trauma. Given the potential risks and costs, there is a clear need for a clinical decision rule (CDR) to safely guide targeted use of WBCT. We aimed to derive a CDR to guide clinical decisions on WBCT utilisation by detecting patients at high and low risk of multi-region trauma.We retrospectively identified consecutive patients who had presented to a major trauma centre with suspected major trauma. Study took place at Aintree University Hospital, Merseyside. After extracting data, we derived a clinical decision rule for detection of multi-region trauma by logistic regression and recursive partitioning. The primary outcome was defined as injuries of AIS≥2 in two or more body regions, while the secondary outcome was the presence of two injuries of AIS≥3 in two or more body regions. This rule was cross-validated on the original sample using bootstrapping.1608 patients were included in the study. The derived model combined a bespoke physiological score with mechanistic and anatomical factors. The physiological score identified the risk of multi-region injury at various cut-offs of age, systolic blood pressure, GCS, heart rate and respiratory rate. Patients were further categorised according to mechanism of injury and clinical findings, and specific physiological scores were applied to each category to determine which patients in these categories required WBCT. 'High risk' injury mechanisms included high falls and unprotected road traffic collisions. Clinical signs of injury were categorised by body region, including the head, chest, abdomen and pelvis (figure 1). The overall sensitivity of the clinical decision rule for the primary objective was 96.0% (95% CI:94.8 to 97.2) while the specificity was36.1% (95% CI:33.3 to 39.0). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.11. For the secondary objective the sensitivity was 98.5%, the negative likelihood ratio 0.04.emermed;34/12/A861-a/F1F1F1Figure 1 CONCLUSION: This study derived a two stage CDR which was highly sensitive for identifying patients at high risk of multiregion injury. A prospective external validation study is now required to further refine and improve this model. This could provide a useful screening tool in the future

The use of whole-body computed tomography in major trauma:Variations in practice in UK trauma hospitals

Introduction: Whole-body CT (WBCT) use in patients with trauma in England and Wales is not well documented. WBCT in trauma can reduce time to definitive care, thereby increasing survival. However, its use varies significantly worldwide. Methods: We performed a retrospective observational study of Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) data from 2012 to 2014. The proportion of adult patients receiving WBCT during initial resuscitation at major trauma centres (MTCs) and trauma units/non-designated hospitals (TUs/NDHs) was compared. A model was developed that included factors associated with WBCT use, and centre effects within the model were explored to determine variation in usage beyond that expected from the model. Results: Of the 115 664 study participants, 16.5% had WBCT. WBCT was performed five times more frequently in MTCs than in TUs/NDHs (31% vs 6.6%). In the multivariate model, increased injury severity, low GCS, shock, comorbidities and triage category increased the chances of having a WBCT, but there was no consistent relation with age. High falls and motor vehicle collisions also increased WBCT usage. Adjusting for casemix, there was a 13-fold intrahospital variation in the use of WBCT between MTCs and a 30-fold variation between TUs/NDHs. The amount of variability between individual hospitals that could not be accounted for by the factors shown to impact on WBCT use was 26% (95% CI 17% to 39%) for MTCs and 17% (95% CI 13% to 21%) for TUs/NDHs. Conclusion: There are significant variations in WBCT use between different hospitals in England and Wales, which require further investigation

Are first rib fractures a marker for other life-threatening injuries in patients with major trauma? A cohort study of patients on the UK Trauma Audit and Research Network database

Background: First rib fractures are considered indicators of increased morbidity and mortality in major trauma. However, this has not been definitively proven. With an increased use of CT and the potential increase in detection of first rib fractures, re-evaluation of these injuries as a marker for life-threatening injuries is warranted. Methods: Patients sustaining rib fractures between January 2012 and December 2013 were investigated using data from the UK Trauma Audit and Research Network. The prevalence of life-threatening injuries was compared in patients with first rib fractures and those with other rib fractures. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the association between first rib fractures, injury severity, polytrauma and mortality. Results: There were 1683 patients with first rib fractures and 8369 with fractures of other ribs. Life-threatening intrathoracic and extrathoracic injuries were more likely in patients with first rib fractures. The presence of first rib fractures was a significant predictor of injury severity (Injury Severity Score >15) and polytrauma, independent of mechanism of injury, age and gender with an adjusted OR of 2.64 (95% CI 2.33 to 3.00) and 2.01 (95% CI 1.80 to 2.25), respectively. Risk-adjusted mortality was the same in patients with first rib fractures and those with other rib fractures (adjusted OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.19). Conclusion: First rib fractures are a marker of life-threatening injuries in major trauma, though they do not independently increase mortality. Management of patients with first rib fractures should focus on identification and treatment of associated life-threatening injuries