The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma renal injury grading scale: Implications of the 2018 revisions for injury reclassification and predicting bleeding interventions.

BackgroundIn 2018, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) published revisions to the renal injury grading system to reflect the increased reliance on computed tomography scans and non-operative management of high-grade renal trauma (HGRT). We aimed to evaluate how these revisions will change the grading of HGRT and if it outperforms the original 1989 grading in predicting bleeding control interventions.MethodsData on HGRT were collected from 14 Level-1 trauma centers from 2014 to 2017. Patients with initial computed tomography scans were included. Two radiologists reviewed the scans to regrade the injuries according to the 1989 and 2018 AAST grading systems. Descriptive statistics were used to assess grade reclassifications. Mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression was used to measure the predictive ability of each grading system. The areas under the curves were compared.ResultsOf the 322 injuries included, 27.0% were upgraded, 3.4% were downgraded, and 69.5% remained unchanged. Of the injuries graded as III or lower using the 1989 AAST, 33.5% were upgraded to grade IV using the 2018 AAST. Of the grade V injuries, 58.8% were downgraded using the 2018 AAST. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall areas under the curves between the 2018 and 1989 AAST grading system for predicting bleeding interventions (0.72 vs. 0.68, p = 0.34).ConclusionAbout one third of the injuries previously classified as grade III will be upgraded to grade IV using the 2018 AAST, which adds to the heterogeneity of grade IV injuries. Although the 2018 AAST grading provides more anatomic details on injury patterns and includes important radiologic findings, it did not outperform the 1989 AAST grading in predicting bleeding interventions.Level of evidencePrognostic and Epidemiological Study, level III

First steps toward a BIG change: A pilot study to implement the Brain Injury Guidelines across a 24-hospital system

INTRODUCTION: The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) support a subset of low-risk patients to be managed without repeat head computed tomography (RHCT), neurosurgical consult (NSC), or hospital transfer/admission. This pilot aimed to assess mBIG implementation at a single facility to inform future systemwide implementation. METHODS: Single cohort pilot trial at a level I trauma center, December 2021-August 2022. Adult patients included if tICH meeting BIG 1 or 2 criteria. BIG 3 patients excluded. RESULTS: No patients required neurosurgical intervention. 72 RHCT and 83 NSC were prevented. 21 isolated BIG 1 were safely discharged home from the ED. No hospital readmissions for tICH. Protocol adherence rate was 92%. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the mBIG at a single trauma center is feasible and optimizes resource utilization. This pilot study will inform an implementation trial of the mBIG across a 24-hospital integrated health system

Comparative evaluation of the clinical laboratory-based Intermountain risk score with the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices for mortality prediction.

BACKGROUND:The Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices are mortality predictors often used in clinical, administrative, and research applications. The Intermountain Mortality Risk Scores (IMRS) are validated mortality predictors that use all factors from the complete blood count and basic metabolic profile. How IMRS, Charlson, and Elixhauser relate to each other is unknown. METHODS:All inpatient admissions except obstetric patients at Intermountain Healthcare's 21 adult care hospitals from 2010-2014 (N = 197,680) were examined in a observational cohort study. The most recent admission was a patient's index encounter. Follow-up to 2018 used hospital death records, Utah death certificates, and the Social Security death master file. Three Charlson versions, 8 Elixhauser versions, and 3 IMRS formulations were evaluated in Cox regression and the one of each that was most predictive was used in dual risk score mortality analyses (in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality). RESULTS:Indices with the strongest mortality associations and selected for dual score study were the age-adjusted Charlson, the van Walraven version of the acute Elixhauser, and the 1-year IMRS. For in-hospital mortality, Charlson (c = 0.719; HR = 4.75, 95% CI = 4.45, 5.07), Elixhauser (c = 0.783; HR = 5.79, CI = 5.41, 6.19), and IMRS (c = 0.821; HR = 17.95, CI = 15.90, 20.26) were significant predictors (p<0.001) in univariate analyses. Dual score analysis of Charlson (HR = 1.79, CI = 1.66, 1.92) with IMRS (HR = 13.10, CI = 11.53, 14.87) and of Elixhauser (HR = 3.00, CI = 2.80, 3.21) with IMRS (HR = 11.42, CI = 10.09, 12.92) found significance for both scores in each model. Results were similar for 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS:IMRS provided the strongest ability to predict mortality, adding to and attenuating the predictive ability of the Charlson and Elixhauser indices whose mortality associations remained statistically significant. IMRS uses common, standardized, objective laboratory data and should be further evaluated for integration into mortality risk evaluations

A multicenter, prospective, controlled clinical trial of surgical stabilization of rib fractures in patients with severe, nonflail fracture patterns (Chest Wall Injury Society NONFLAIL).

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of surgical stabilization of rib fracture (SSRF) in patients without flail chest has not been studied specifically. We hypothesized that SSRF improves outcomes among patients with displaced rib fractures in the absence of flail chest. METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, controlled, clinical trial (12 centers) comparing SSRF within 72 hours to medical management. Inclusion criteria were three or more ipsilateral, severely displaced rib fractures without flail chest. The trial involved both randomized and observational arms at patient discretion. The primary outcome was the numeric pain score (NPS) at 2-week follow-up. Narcotic consumption, spirometry, pulmonary function tests, pleural space complications (tube thoracostomy or surgery for retained hemothorax or empyema \u3e24 hours from admission) and both overall and respiratory disability-related quality of life (RD-QoL) were also compared. RESULTS: One hundred ten subjects were enrolled. There were no significant differences between subjects who selected randomization (n = 23) versus observation (n = 87); these groups were combined for all analyses. Of the 110 subjects, 51 (46.4%) underwent SSRF. There were no significant baseline differences between the operative and nonoperative groups. At 2-week follow-up, the NPS was significantly lower in the operative, as compared with the nonoperative group (2.9 vs. 4.5, p \u3c 0.01), and RD-QoL was significantly improved (disability score, 21 vs. 25, p = 0.03). Narcotic consumption also trended toward being lower in the operative, as compared with the nonoperative group (0.5 vs. 1.2 narcotic equivalents, p = 0.05). During the index admission, pleural space complications were significantly lower in the operative, as compared with the nonoperative group (0% vs. 10.2%, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: In this clinical trial, SSRF performed within 72 hours improved the primary outcome of NPS at 2-week follow-up among patients with three or more displaced fractures in the absence of flail chest. These data support the role of SSRF in patients without flail chest. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level II