Survey on worldwide trauma team activation requirement

PURPOSE : trauma team activation (TTA) is thought to be essential for advanced and specialized care of very severely injured patients. However, non-specific TTA criteria may result in overtriage that consumes valuable resources or endanger patients in need of TTA secondary to undertriage. Consequently, criterion standard definitions to calculate the accuracy of the various TTA protocols are required for research and quality assurance purposes. Recently, several groups suggested a list of conditions when a trauma team is considered to be essential in the initial care in the emergency room. The objective of the survey was to post hoc identify trauma-related conditions that are thought to require a specialized trauma team that may be widely accepted, independent from the country’s income level. METHODS : A set of questions was developed, centered around the level of agreement with the proposed post hoc criteria to define adequate trauma team activation. The participants gave feedback before they answered the survey to improve the quality of the questions. The finalized survey was conducted using an online tool and a word form. The income per capita of a country was rated according to the World Bank Country and Lending groups. RESULTS : The return rate was 76% with a total of 37 countries participating. The agreement with the proposed criteria to define post hoc correct requirements for trauma team activation was more than 75% for 12 of the 20 criteria. The rate of disagreement was low and varied between zero and 13%. The level of agreement was independent from the country’s level of income. CONCLUSIONS : The agreement on criteria to post hoc define correct requirements for trauma team activation appears high and it may be concluded that the proposed criteria could be useful for most countries, independent from their level of income. Nevertheless, more discussions on an international level appear to be warranted to achieve a full consensus to define a universal set of criteria that will allow for quality assessment of over- and undertriage of trauma team activation as well as for the validation of field triage criteria for the most severely injured patients worldwide.http://link.springer.com/journal/68am2022Surger

Predictive Factors for a Long Hospital Stay in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

Background. Although the advantages of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) over open cholecystectomy are immediately obvious and appreciated, several patients need a postoperative hospital stay of more than 24 hours. Thus, the predictive factors for this longer stay need to be investigated. The aim of this study was to identify the causes of a long hospital stay after LC. Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study with 500 successful elective LC patients being included in the analysis. Short hospital stay was defined as being discharged within 24 hours after the operation, whereas long hospital stay was defined as the need for a stay of more than 24 hours after the operation. Results. Using multivariable analysis, ten independent predictive factors were identified for a long hospital stay. These included patients with cirrhosis, patients with a history of previous acute cholecystitis, cholangitis, or pancreatitis, patients on anticoagulation with warfarin, patients with standard-pressure pneumoperitoneum, patients who had been given metoclopramide as an intraoperative antiemetic drug, patients who had been using abdominal drain, patients who had numeric rating scale for pain > 3, patients with an oral analgesia requirement > 2 doses, complications, and private ward admission. Conclusions. LC difficulties were important predictive factors for a long hospital stay, as well as medication and operative factors

Waning vaccine response to severe COVID-19 outcomes during omicron predominance in Thailand.

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has evolved quickly, with different variants of concern resulting in the need to offer continued protection through booster vaccinations. The duration of enhanced protection with booster doses against severe COVID-19 is still unclear. Understanding this is critical to recommendations on the frequency of future booster doses.MethodsUtilising a Hospital Information System for COVID-19 established in Chiang Mai, Thailand, we conducted a cohort study by linking patient-level data of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 cases to the national immunization records, during the omicron predominant period (1 February- 31 July 2022).ResultsOut of 261,103 adults with COVID-19 included in the study, there were 333 (0.13%) severe COVID-19 cases and 190 (0.07%) deaths. Protection against severe COVID-19 was highest with boosters received >14-60 days prior to positive test (93%) and persisted at >60-120 days (91%) but started to wane at >120-180 days (77%) and further at >180 days (68%). The rate of waning differed with age. Those ≥70 years showed faster waning of booster vaccine responses as compared to those aged 18-49 years, who retained good responses up to 180 days. Equivalent risk reduction against severe COVID-19 was seen with all the vaccine types used as boosters in Thailand.ConclusionsBooster doses provided high levels of protection against severe COVID-19 with omicron, up to 4 months. Repeat boosters will be required to continue protection beyond 4 months, particularly in the elderly. mRNA and viral vector vaccines can be used flexibly to improve booster coverage