A Statewide Analysis of the Incidence and Outcomes of Acute Mesenteric Ischemia in Maryland from 2009 – 2013.

Introduction.Acute mesenteric ischemia is a surgical emergency that entails complex, multi-modal management, but its epidemiology and outcomes remain poorly defined. The aim of this study was to perform a population analysis of the contemporary incidence and outcomes of mesenteric ischemia.Methods.This was a retrospective analysis of acute mesenteric ischemia in the state of Maryland during 2009 – 2013 using a comprehensive statewide hospital admission database. Demographics, illness severity, comorbidities, and outcomes were studied. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Survivors and non-survivors were compared using univariate analyses, and multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate risk factors for mortality.Results.During the 5-year study period, there were 3,157,499 adult hospital admissions in Maryland. 2,255 patients (0.07%) had acute mesenteric ischemia, yielding an annual admission rate of 10/100,000. Increasing age, hypercoagulability, cardiac dysrhythmia, renal insufficiency, increasing illness severity, and tertiary hospital admission were associated with development of mesenteric ischemia. Inpatient mortality was high (24%). After multivariate analysis, independent risk factors for death were age > 65 years, critical illness severity, mechanical ventilation, tertiary hospital admission, hypercoagulability, renal insufficiency, and dysrhythmia.Conclusions.Acute mesenteric ischemia occurs in approximately 1/1000 admissions in Maryland. Patients with mesenteric ischemia have significant illness severity, substantial rates of organ dysfunction, and high mortality. Patients with chronic comorbidities and acute organ dysfunction are at increased risk of death, and recognition of these risk factors may enable prevention or earlier control of mesenteric ischemia in high-risk patients

A core outcome set for appendicitis: A consensus approach utilizing modified Delphi methodology.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is one of the most common pathologies encountered by general and acute care surgeons. The current literature is inconsistent, as it is fraught with outcome heterogeneity, especially in the area of nonoperative management. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for future appendicitis studies to facilitate outcome standardization and future data pooling. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted after identification of content experts in the field of appendicitis using both the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) landmark appendicitis papers and consensus from the EAST ad hoc COS taskforce on appendicitis. The study incorporated 3 rounds. Round 1 utilized free text outcome suggestions, then in rounds 2 and 3 the suggests were scored using a Likert scale of 1-9 with 1-3 denoting a less important outcome, 4-6 denoting an important but non-critical outcome, and 7-9 denoting a critically important outcome. Core outcome status consensus was defined a priori as \u3e70% of scores 7-9 and \u3c 15% of scores 1-3. RESULTS: Seventeen panelists initially agreed to participate in the study with 16 completing the process (94%). Thirty-two unique potential outcomes were initially suggested in Round 1 and 10 (31%) met consensus with one outcome meeting exclusion at the end of Round 2. At completion of Round 3 a total of 17 (53%) outcomes achieved COS consensus. CONCLUSIONS: An international panel of 16 appendicitis experts achieved consensus on 17 core outcomes that should be incorporated into future appendicitis studies as a minimum set of standardized outcomes to help frame future cohort-based studies on appendicitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V, Diagnostic test or criteria

Sigh Ventilation in Patients With Trauma: The SiVent Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Among patients receiving mechanical ventilation, tidal volumes with each breath are often constant or similar. This may lead to ventilator-induced lung injury by altering or depleting surfactant. The role of sigh breaths in reducing ventilator-induced lung injury among trauma patients at risk of poor outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adding sigh breaths improves clinical outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A pragmatic, randomized trial of sigh breaths plus usual care conducted from 2016 to 2022 with 28-day follow-up in 15 academic trauma centers in the US. Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years, mechanical ventilation because of trauma for less than 24 hours, 1 or more of 5 risk factors for developing acute respiratory distress syndrome, expected duration of ventilation longer than 24 hours, and predicted survival longer than 48 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Sigh volumes producing plateau pressures of 35 cm H2O (or 40 cm H2O for inpatients with body mass indexes \u3e35) delivered once every 6 minutes. Usual care was defined as the patient\u27s physician(s) treating the patient as they wished. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days. Prespecified secondary outcomes included all-cause 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Of 5753 patients screened, 524 were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 43.9 [19.2] years; 394 [75.2%] were male). The median ventilator-free days was 18.4 (IQR, 7.0-25.2) in patients randomized to sighs and 16.1 (IQR, 1.1-24.4) in those receiving usual care alone (P = .08). The unadjusted mean difference in ventilator-free days between groups was 1.9 days (95% CI, 0.1 to 3.6) and the prespecified adjusted mean difference was 1.4 days (95% CI, -0.2 to 3.0). For the prespecified secondary outcome, patients randomized to sighs had 28-day mortality of 11.6% (30/259) vs 17.6% (46/261) in those receiving usual care (P = .05). No differences were observed in nonfatal adverse events comparing patients with sighs (80/259 [30.9%]) vs those without (80/261 [30.7%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a pragmatic, randomized trial among trauma patients receiving mechanical ventilation with risk factors for developing acute respiratory distress syndrome, the addition of sigh breaths did not significantly increase ventilator-free days. Prespecified secondary outcome data suggest that sighs are well-tolerated and may improve clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02582957