Factor VIIa administration in traumatic brain injury: an AAST-MITC propensity score analysis.

Background:Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) has been used off-label as an adjunct in the reversal of warfarin therapy and management of hemorrhage after trauma. Only a handful of these reports are rigorous studies, from which results regarding safety and effectiveness have been mixed. There remains no clear consensus as to the role of rFVIIa in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods:Eleven level 1 trauma centers provided clinical data and head CT scans of patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of ≤13 and radiographic evidence of TBI. A propensity score (PS) to receive rFVIIa in those surviving ≥2 days was calculated for each patient based on patient demographics, comorbidities, physiology, Injury Severity Score, admission GCS score, and treatment center. Patients receiving rFVIIa within 24 hours of admission were matched to patients who did not receive rFVIIa for outcomes assessment. Subgroup analysis evaluated patients with primary head injury with PS matching. Results:There were 4284 patient observations; 129 received rFVIIa. Groups were comparable after matching. No differences in mortality or morbidity were found. Improvement in GCS score from admission to discharge was less among those receiving rFVIIa (5.5 vs. 2.4; P value 0.001); however, there was no difference in average GCS score at discharge. No significant differences in outcomes were identified in patients with isolated TBI receiving rFVIIa. Discussion:rFVIIa in early management of TBI is not associated with a decreased risk of mortality or morbidity, and may negatively impact recovery and functional status at discharge in the severely injured patient with polytrauma. Level of evidence:Level III. Study type:Therapeutic/care management

The impact of trauma-center care on mortality and function following pelvic ring and acetabular injuries

ABSTRACT Background: Lower mortality and improved physical function following major polytrauma have been associated with treatment at level-1 trauma centers (TC) compared with that at non-trauma centers (NTC). This study investigates the impact of TC care on outcomes after pelvic and acetabular injuries. Methods: Mortality and quality of life-related measures were compared among patients treated in 18 hospitals with level-1 trauma centers and 51 hospitals without trauma centers in 14 U.S. states. Complete data were obtained on 829 adult trauma patients (18-84 years old) with at least one pelvic ring or acetabular injury (OTA 61 or 62). We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for observable confounding. Results: After adjustment for case mix, in-hospital mortality was significantly lower at TC versus NTC (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.47), as was death by 90 days (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.47), and one year (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.76) for patients with more severe acetabular injuries (OTA 62-B or 62-C). Patients with combined pelvic ring and acetabular injuries treated at TC had lower mortality by 90 days (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.82) and one year (RR 0.30 95% CI 0.14-0.68). Care at TC was also associated with mortality risk reduction for those with unstable pelvic ring injuries (OTA 61-B or 61-C) at one year (RR 0.21, 95%CI 0.06-0.76). Seventy-eight percent of included subjects discharged alive was available for interview at twelve months. Average absolute differences in SF-36 physical functioning and Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment at one year were 11.4 (95%CI 5.3 – 17.4) and 13.2 (1.7 – 24.7) respectively, indicating statistically and clinically significant improved outcomes with TC treatment for more severe acetabular injuries. Conclusions: Mortality is reduced for patients with unstable pelvic and severe acetabular injuries when care is provided in a TC compared to NTC. Moreover, those with severe acetabular fractures experience improved physical function at one year. Patients with these injuries represent a well-defined subset of trauma patients that should be preferentially triaged or transferred to a Level-1 trauma center

Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapy in Injured Patients: Variations Between Trauma Centers and Nontrauma Centers

Background—We sought to identify patient and institutional variables predictive of a withdrawal of care order (WOCO) in trauma patients. We hypothesized that the frequency of WOCO would be higher at trauma centers. Methods—Data from the National Study on the Costs and Outcomes of Trauma (NSCOT) was used to determine associations between WOCO status and patient characteristics, institutional characteristics, and hospital course. Chi-square, t-tests and multivariate analysis was used to identify variables predictive of WOCO. Results—Of 14,190 patients, 618 (4.4%) had WOCO, which accounted for 60.9% of patients who died in hospital. Age (p=<0.001), race (p=<0.001), co-morbidity (p=<0.001) and injury mechanism were associated with WOCO (p=0.03). WOCO patients had higher NISS (p=<0.001), lower GCS motor scores (p=<0.001) and higher incidence of midline shift on head CT (p=0.01). Trauma center status (OR 1.56 (95% CI 1.06,2.30)) and closed ICU (OR 1.53 (95% CI 1.03,2.25)) were also predictive of WOCO. There was sizeable variation (0 to 16%) in the percentage of patients with WOCO across centers. Conclusion—Most trauma patients who die in hospital do so after a WOCO. Although trauma center status and closed ICU are predictive of WOCO, variation in the percentage of patients with WOCO across all centers speaks to the complexity of these decisions. Further investigation is needed to understand how WOCO is applied to trauma patients

Mechanism of injury and special considerations as predictive of serious injury: A systematic review.

Objectives: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\u27s field triage guidelines (FTG) are routinely used by emergency medical services personnel for triaging injured patients. The most recent (2011) FTG contains physiologic, anatomic, mechanism, and special consideration steps. Our objective was to systematically review the criteria in the mechanism and special consideration steps that might be predictive of serious injury or need for a trauma center. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the predictive utility of mechanism and special consideration criteria for predicting serious injury. A research librarian searched in Ovid Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases for studies published between January 2011 and February 2021. Eligible studies were identified using a priori inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if they lacked an outcome for serious injury, such as measures of resource use, injury severity scores, mortality, or composite measures using a combination of outcomes. Given the heterogeneity in populations, measures, and outcomes, results were synthesized qualitatively focusing on positive likelihood ratios (LR+) whenever these could be calculated from presented data or adjusted odds ratios (aOR

Revision of TRISS for intubated patients

The TRISS system is an important, widely used method for predicting survival in trauma patients. One significant shortcoming of TRISS is its inability to include intubated patients in survival analysis because a respiratory rate and a verbal response are not obtainable. This report describes one approach to this problem. Data from 994 patients with blunt trauma were examined. Like TRISS, survival probability was calculated using a logistic regression model that included age and Injury Severity Score (ISS); however, the best motor response and systolic blood pressure were used in place of the Revised Trauma Score (RTS). With this model, the sensitivity, specificity, and misclassification rate were 57%, 98.9%, and 3.6%, respectively. For TRISS, the sensitivity, specificity, and misclassification rate are 58.8%, 99.3%, and 3.0%, respectively. Thus, our model has predictive performance comparable with TRISS. More importantly, it is applicable to intubated patients who are not pharmacologically paralyzed. Further investigation with larger data bases is necessary. © 1992 by Williams & Wilkins

Hospital-level intensive care unit admission for patients with isolated blunt abdominal solid organ injury

BackgroundThe optimal level of care for hemodynamically stable patients with isolated blunt hepatic, renal, or splenic injuries (solid organ injuries [SOIs]) is unknown. We sought to characterize interhospital variability in intensive care unit (ICU) admission of such patients and to determine whether greater hospital-level ICU use would be associated with improved outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the 2015 and 2016 National Trauma Data Bank. We included adult patients with blunt trauma with SOIs with an Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 2 to 4. We excluded patients with other significant injuries, hypotension, or another indication for ICU admission, and hospitals with less than 10 eligible patients. We categorized hospitals into quartiles based on the proportion of eligible patients admitted to an ICU. The primary outcome was a composite of organ failure (cardiac arrest, acute lung injury/acute respiratory failure, or acute kidney injury), infection (sepsis, pneumonia, or catheter-related blood stream infection), or death during hospitalization.ResultsAmong 14,312 patients at 444 facilities, 7,225 (50%), 5,050 (35%), and 3,499 (24%) had splenic, hepatic, and renal injuries, respectively. The median proportion of ICU use was 44% (interquartile range, 27-59%, range 0-95%). The composite outcome occurred in 180 patients (1.3%), with death in 76 (0.5%), organ failure in 97 (0.7%), and infection in 53 (0.4%). Relative to hospitals with the lowest ICU use (quartile 1), greater hospital-level ICU use was not associated with decreased likelihood of the composite outcome (adjusted odds ratios, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.88-1.95; 0.81; 95% CI, 0.52-1.26; and 0.94; 95% CI, 0.62-1.43 for quartiles 2-4, respectively) or its components. Unplanned ICU transfer was no more likely with lower hospital-level ICU use.ConclusionAdmission location of stable patients with isolated mild to moderate abdominal SOIs is variable across hospitals, but hospitalization at a facility with greater ICU use is not associated with substantially improved outcomes.Level of evidenceTherapeutic/care management, Level IV

Hospital-level intensive care unit admission for patients with isolated blunt abdominal solid organ injury.

BackgroundThe optimal level of care for hemodynamically stable patients with isolated blunt hepatic, renal, or splenic injuries (solid organ injuries [SOIs]) is unknown. We sought to characterize interhospital variability in intensive care unit (ICU) admission of such patients and to determine whether greater hospital-level ICU use would be associated with improved outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using the 2015 and 2016 National Trauma Data Bank. We included adult patients with blunt trauma with SOIs with an Abbreviated Injury Scale score of 2 to 4. We excluded patients with other significant injuries, hypotension, or another indication for ICU admission, and hospitals with less than 10 eligible patients. We categorized hospitals into quartiles based on the proportion of eligible patients admitted to an ICU. The primary outcome was a composite of organ failure (cardiac arrest, acute lung injury/acute respiratory failure, or acute kidney injury), infection (sepsis, pneumonia, or catheter-related blood stream infection), or death during hospitalization.ResultsAmong 14,312 patients at 444 facilities, 7,225 (50%), 5,050 (35%), and 3,499 (24%) had splenic, hepatic, and renal injuries, respectively. The median proportion of ICU use was 44% (interquartile range, 27-59%, range 0-95%). The composite outcome occurred in 180 patients (1.3%), with death in 76 (0.5%), organ failure in 97 (0.7%), and infection in 53 (0.4%). Relative to hospitals with the lowest ICU use (quartile 1), greater hospital-level ICU use was not associated with decreased likelihood of the composite outcome (adjusted odds ratios, 1.31; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.88-1.95; 0.81; 95% CI, 0.52-1.26; and 0.94; 95% CI, 0.62-1.43 for quartiles 2-4, respectively) or its components. Unplanned ICU transfer was no more likely with lower hospital-level ICU use.ConclusionAdmission location of stable patients with isolated mild to moderate abdominal SOIs is variable across hospitals, but hospitalization at a facility with greater ICU use is not associated with substantially improved outcomes.Level of evidenceTherapeutic/care management, Level IV

Residual Hemothorax after Chest Tube Placement Correlates with Increased Risk of Empyema Following Traumatic Injury

BACKGROUND: Empyema complicates tube thoracostomy following trauma in up to 10% of cases. Studies of potential risk factors of empyema have included use of antibiotics, site of injury and technique of chest tube placement. Residual fluid has also been cited as a risk factor for empyema, although the imaging technique to identify this varies