Cirrhosis, Operative Trauma, Transfusion, and Mortality: A Multicenter Retrospective Observational Study

Background: In trauma patients with cirrhosis who require laparotomy, little data exists to establish clinical predictors of the outcome. We sought to determine the prognosticators of mortality in this population. Methods: We performed a 10-year review at four, busy Level I trauma centers of patients with cirrhosis identified during trauma laparotomy. We compared vital signs, laboratory values, and transfusion requirements for those who survived versus those who died. A linear regression was then conducted to determine the variables associated with death in this population. Results: A total of 66 patients were included and 47% (31/66) died. The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was low (7.8 in Lived, 10.2 in Died). Packed red blood cell (PRBC) transfusion at six hours was greater in those who died; those receiving > 6 units of PRBCs at 6 hours had an increased likelihood of death (odds ratio OR 5.8 (95% CI 1.9, 17.4)). All patients receiving >= 17 units of PRBCs died. We found an association between lower preoperative platelets (PLTs), higher preoperative international normalized ratio (INR) and partial thromboplastin time (PTT), lower preoperative pH (presence of profound acidemia), increased intraoperative crystalloid use, and increased intraoperative blood product administration to be associated with death (p 1.2, PTT > 40).Open access journalThis item from the UA Faculty Publications collection is made available by the University of Arizona with support from the University of Arizona Libraries. If you have questions, please contact us at [email protected]

Creation of standardized tools to evaluate reporting in health research: Population Reporting Of Gender, Race, Ethnicity & Sex (PROGRES).

Despite increasing diversity in research recruitment, research finding reporting by gender, race, ethnicity, and sex has remained up to the discretion of authors. This study developped and piloted tools to standardize the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop standardized tools for the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. Health research, social epidemiology, sociology, and medical anthropology experts from 11 different universities participated in the Delphi process. The tools were pilot tested on 85 health research manuscripts in top health research journals to determine inter-rater reliability of the tools. The tools each spanned five dimensions for both sex and gender as well as race and ethnicity: Author inclusiveness, Participant inclusiveness, Nomenclature reporting, Descriptive reporting, and Outcomes reporting for each subpopulation. The sex and gender tool had a median score of 6 and a range of 1-15 out of 16 possible points. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the sex and gender tool was 82%. The interrater reliability or average Cohens Kappa was 0.54 with a standard deviation of 0.33 demonstrating moderate agreement. The race and ethnicity tool had a median score of 1 and a range of 0-15 out of 16 possible points. Race and ethnicity were both reported in only 25.8% of studies evaluated. Most studies that reported race reported only the largest subgroups; White, Black, and Latinx. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the race and ethnicity tool was 84 and average Cohens Kappa was 0.61 with a standard deviation of 0.38 demonstrating substantial agreement. While the overall dimension scores were low (indicating low inclusivity), the interrater reliability measures indicated moderate to substantial agreement for the respective tools. Efforts in recruitment alone will not provide more inclusive literature without improving reporting

Creation of standardized tools to evaluate reporting in health research: Population Reporting Of Gender, Race, Ethnicity & Sex (PROGRES)

Despite increasing diversity in research recruitment, research finding reporting by gender, race, ethnicity, and sex has remained up to the discretion of authors. This study developped and piloted tools to standardize the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. A modified Delphi approach was used to develop standardized tools for the inclusive reporting of gender, race, ethnicity, and sex in health research. Health research, social epidemiology, sociology, and medical anthropology experts from 11 different universities participated in the Delphi process. The tools were pilot tested on 85 health research manuscripts in top health research journals to determine inter-rater reliability of the tools. The tools each spanned five dimensions for both sex and gender as well as race and ethnicity: Author inclusiveness, Participant inclusiveness, Nomenclature reporting, Descriptive reporting, and Outcomes reporting for each subpopulation. The sex and gender tool had a median score of 6 and a range of 1–15 out of 16 possible points. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the sex and gender tool was 82%. The interrater reliability or average Cohen’s Kappa was 0.54 with a standard deviation of 0.33 demonstrating moderate agreement. The race and ethnicity tool had a median score of 1 and a range of 0–15 out of 16 possible points. Race and ethnicity were both reported in only 25.8% of studies evaluated. Most studies that reported race reported only the largest subgroups; White, Black, and Latinx. The percent agreement between reviewers piloting the race and ethnicity tool was 84 and average Cohen’s Kappa was 0.61 with a standard deviation of 0.38 demonstrating substantial agreement. While the overall dimension scores were low (indicating low inclusivity), the interrater reliability measures indicated moderate to substantial agreement for the respective tools. Efforts in recruitment alone will not provide more inclusive literature without improving reporting

Traumatic Brain Injury in Older Adults: Characteristics, Outcomes, and Considerations. Results From the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Geriatric Traumatic Brain Injury (GERI-TBI) Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Describe the epidemiology of a large cohort of older adults with isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI) and identify predictors of mortality, palliative interventions, and discharge to preinjury residence in those presenting with moderate/severe TBI. DESIGN: Prospective observational study of geriatric patients with TBI enrolled across 45 trauma centers. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria were age ≥40 years, and computed tomography (CT)-verified TBI. Exclusion criteria were any other body region abbreviated injury scale score \u3e2 and presentation at enrolling center \u3e24 hours after injury. METHODS: The analysis was restricted to individuals aged ≥65 and stratified into 3 age groups: young-old (65-74), middle-old (75-84), and oldest-old (≥85). Demographic, clinical, and injury data were collected. Predictors of mortality, palliative interventions, and discharge to preinjury residence in the moderate/severe TBI group were identified using Classification and Regression Tree and Generalized Linear Mixed Models. RESULTS: Of the 3081 subjects enrolled in the study, 2028 were ≥65 years old. Overall, 339 (16.7%) presented with a moderate/severe TBI and experienced a 64% mortality rate. A Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scoremortality, CT worsening (odds ratio [OR] = 1.7, P \u3c .04), cerebral edema (OR = 2.4, P \u3c .04), GCS CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: In this prospective study of a large cohort of older adults with isolated TBI, comparisons across the older age groups with moderate/severe TBI revealed that survival and favorable discharge disposition were influenced more by severity of injury rather than age itself. Indicating that chronological age alone maybe insufficient to accurately predict outcomes, and increased representation of older adults in TBI research to develop better diagnostic and prognostic tools is warranted

Factors associated with receipt of intracranial pressure monitoring in older adults with traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: The Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) include intracranial pressure monitoring (ICPM), yet very little is known about ICPM in older adults. Our objectives were to characterize the utilization of ICPM in older adults and identify factors associated with ICPM in those who met the BTF guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed data from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Geriatric TBI Study, a registry study conducted among individuals with isolated, CT-confirmed TBI across 45 trauma centers. The analysis was restricted to those aged ≥60. Independent factors associated with ICPM for those who did and did not meet the BTF guidelines were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: Our sample was composed of 2303 patients, of whom 66 (2.9%) underwent ICPM. Relative to Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 to 15, GCS score of 9 to 12 (OR 10.2; 95% CI 4.3 to 24.4) and GCS score of \u3c9 \u3e(OR 15.0; 95% CI 7.2 to 31.1), intraventricular hemorrhage (OR 2.4; 95% CI 1.2 to 4.83), skull fractures (OR 3.6; 95% CI 2.0 to 6.6), CT worsening (OR 3.3; 95% CI 1.8 to 5.9), and neurosurgical interventions (OR 3.8; 95% CI 2.1 to 7.0) were significantly associated with ICPM. Restricting to those who met the BTF guidelines, only 43 of 240 (18%) underwent ICPM. Factors independently associated with ICPM included intraparenchymal hemorrhage (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.0 to 4.7), skull fractures (OR 3.9; 95% CI 1.9 to 8.2), and neurosurgical interventions (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.7 to 7.2). DISCUSSION: Worsening GCS, intraparenchymal/intraventricular hemorrhage, and skull fractures were associated with ICPM among older adults with TBI, yet utilization of ICPM remains low, especially among those meeting the BTF guidelines, and potential benefits remain unclear. This study highlights the need for better understanding of factors that influence compliance with BTF guidelines and the risks versus benefits of ICPM in this population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III

Development and Validation of a Novel Hollow Viscus Injury Prediction Score for Abdominal Seatbelt Sign: A Pacific Coast Surgical Association Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND: High-quality computed tomography (CT) can exclude HVI in patients with an A-SBS but performs poorly at identifying HVI. Delay in diagnosis of HVI has significant consequences necessitating timely identification. STUDY DESIGN: This multicenter, prospective observational study conducted at nine trauma centers between August 2020-October 2021 included adult trauma patients with A-SBS who underwent abdominal CT prior to surgery. HVI was determined intra-operatively and physiologic, examination, laboratory, and imaging findings were collected. Lasso and probit regression selected predictor variables and coefficients were used to assign integer points for the HVI Score. Validation was performed by comparing area under receiver operating curves (AUROC). RESULTS: Analysis included 473 in the development set and 203 in the validation set. The HVI Score includes initial systolic blood pressure \u3c 110mmHg, abdominal tenderness, guarding, and select abdominal CT findings. The derivation set has an AUROC of 0.96 and the validation set has an AUROC of 0.91. The HVI Score ranges from 0-17 with score 0-5 having a HVI risk of 0.03-5.36%, 6-9 having a risk of 10.65-44.1%, and 10-17 having a risk of 58.59-99.72%. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study developed and validated a novel HVI Score incorporating readily available physiologic, examination, and CT findings to risk stratify patients with an abdominal SBS. The HVI Score can be used to guide decisions regarding management of a patient with an abdominal SBS and suspected HVI