Search

Introduction: The impact of prolonged emergency department length of stay (EDLOS) on appropriately timed pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEp) and VTE outcomes is unknown in trauma., Methods: Retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to civilian trauma centers participating in the American College of Surgeons' TQIP (2019-2021). Patients with severe solid organ, head, or spine injury, early hemorrhage control intervention, pre-existing home anticoagulation or bleeding disorder, inter-facility transfer or early discharge, and injury severity score ≤9 were excluded. Primary exposure was prolonged EDLOS ≥12 h from ED arrival to physical transfer to the wards. Primary outcome was time to first pharmacological VTEp, censored at 24 and 48 h., Results: A total of 191,031 patients were included, 3,827 remained in the ED ≥12 h. The median time to VTEp was 25 h (IQR 12-43). Prolonged EDLOS was associated with a 34 % and 21 % decrease in timely administration of VTEp at 24 (aHR 0.66, 95 % CI 0.61-0.72, P < 0.001) and 48 h (aHR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.74-0.84, P < 0.001), respectively. After propensity score matching, associations persisted at 24 (aHR 0.69, 95 % CI 0.61-0.77, P < 0.001) and 48 h (aHR 0.80, 95 % CI 0.74-0.86, P < 0.001). Absent VTEp by 24 h was associated with increased VTE odds (aOR 1.84, 95 % CI 1.62-2.08, P < 0.001)., Conclusion: Prolonged EDLOS delayed pharmacological VTEp in a nation-wide cohort of trauma patients. Absent VTEp, consequently, increased risk of in-hospital VTE, although future study is needed to validate these findings. Timely transfer of stable trauma patients to the floor may improve outcomes by facilitating appropriately timed VTEp administration and decreasing ED overcrowding., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None, (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Results from single-region studies suggest that stay at home orders (SAHOs) had unforeseen consequences on the volume and patterns of traumatic injury during the initial months of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The aim of this study was to describe, using a multi-regional approach, the effects of COVID-19 SAHOs on trauma volume and patterns of traumatic injury in the US., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed at four verified Level I trauma centers spanning three geographical regions across the United States (US). The study period spanned from April 1, 2020 - July 31, 2020 including a month-matched 2019 cohort. Patients were categorized into pre-COVID-19 (PCOV19) and first COVID-19 surge (FCOV19S) cohorts. Patient demographic, injury, and outcome data were collected via Trauma Registry queries. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed., Results: A total 5,616 patients presented to participating study centers during the PCOV19 (2,916) and FCOV19S (2,700) study periods.  Blunt injury volume decreased (p = 0.006) due to a significant reduction in the number of motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) (p = 0.003). Penetrating trauma experienced a significant increase, 8% (246/2916) in 2019 to 11% (285/2,700) in 2020 (p = 0.007), which was associated with study site (p = 0.002), not SAHOs. Finally, study site was significantly associated with changes in nearly all injury mechanisms, whereas SAHOs accounted for observed decreases in calculated weekly averages of blunt injuries (p < 0.02) and MVCs (p = 0.003)., Conclusion: Results of this study suggest that COVID-19 and initial SAHOs had variable consequences on patterns of traumatic injury, and that region-specific shifts in traumatic injury ensued during initial SAHOs. These results suggest that other factors, potentially socioeconomic or cultural, confound trauma volumes and types arising from SAHOs. Future analyses must consider how regional changes may be obscured with pooled cohorts, and focus on characterizing community-level changes to aid municipal preparation for future similar events., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest None., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We sought to determine the impact of the indication for shunt placement on shunt-related outcomes after major arterial injuries. We hypothesized that a shunt placed for damage control indications would be associated with an increase in shunt-related complications including shunt dislodgement, thrombosis, or distal ischemia., Patients & Methods: A prospective, multicenter study (eleven level one US trauma centers) of all adult trauma patients undergoing temporary intravascular shunts (TIVS) after arterial injury was undertaken (January 2017-May 2019). Exclusion criteria included age <15years, shunt placement distal to popliteal/brachial arteries, isolated venous shunts, and death before shunt removal. Clinical variables were compared by indication and shunt-related complications. The primary endpoint was TIVS complications (thrombosis, migration, distal ischemia)., Results: The 66 patients who underwent TIVS were primarily young (30years [IQR 22-36]) men (85%), severely injured (ISS 17 [10-25]) by penetrating mechanisms (59%), and had their shunts placed for damage control (41%). After a median SDT of 198min [89-622], 9% experienced shunt-related complications. Compared by shunt placement indication (damage control shunts [n=27] compared to non-damage control shunts [n=39]), there were no differences in gender, mechanism, extremity AIS, MESS score, fractures, or surgeon specialty between the two groups (all p>0.05). Patients with shunts placed for damage control indications had more severe injuries (ISS 23.5 compared to 13; SBP 100 compared to 129; GCS 11 compared to 15; lactate 11.5 compared to 3.6; all p<0.05), and had more frequent shunt complication predictors, but damage control shunts did not have significantly more TIVS complications (11.1% compared to 7.7%, p=0.658). Shunt complication patients were discharged home less often (33% vs 65%; p<0.05) but all survived., Conclusion: Shunts placed for damage control indications were not associated with shunt complications in this prospective, multicenter study., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients on prehospital anticoagulation with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a vulnerable subset of the trauma population. While protocolized warfarin reversal is widely available and easily implemented, prehospital anticoagulation with DOAC is cost prohibitive with only a few reversal options. This study aims to compare hospital outcomes of non-head injured trauma patients taking pre-injury DOAC versus warfarin., Methods: A retrospective cohort study at a level 1 trauma center was performed. All adult trauma patients with pre-injury anticoagulation admitted between January 2015 and December 2018, were stratified into DOAC-using and warfarin-using groups. Patients were excluded if they had traumatic brain injury (TBI). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Outcomes measures included in-hospital mortality, blood transfusion requirements, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS and discharge disposition., Results: 374 non-TBI trauma patients on anticoagulation were identified, of which 134 were on DOACs and 240 on warfarin. Patients on DOACs had a higher ISS (9 [IQR, 9-10] vs. 9 [IQR, 5-9]; p<0.001), and lower admission INR values (1.2 [IQR, 1.1-1.3] vs 2.4 [IQR, 1.8-2.7]; p<0.001) than warfarin users. Use of reversal agents was higher in warfarin users (p<0.001). Relative to warfarin, DOAC users did not differ significantly with respect to hospital mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI [0.13-1.73]). Multivariable analysis (not possible for mortality) did not show significant difference for RBC transfusion requirements (OR 0.92 [0.51-1.67]), ICU LOS (OR 1.08 [0.53-2.19]), hospital LOS (OR 1.10 [0.70-1.74]) or discharge disposition (OR 0.56 [0.29-1.11]) between the groups., Conclusion: Despite lower reversal rates and higher ISS, non-TBI trauma patients with pre-injury DOAC use had similar outcomes as patients on pre-injury warfarin. There may be equipoise to have larger, prospective studies evaluating the comparative safety of DOACs and warfarin in the population prone to low energy fall type injuries., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. No specific funding was received for this study., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: Indications for nonoperative management (NOM) after penetrating renal injury remain ill-defined. Using a national database, we sought to describe the experience of operative and nonoperative management in the United States and retrospectively examine risk factors for failure of NOM., Materials and Methods: The TQIP database 2010-2016 was used to identify patients with penetrating renal trauma. Outcomes of patients treated with an immediate operation (IO) and NOM are described. Failure of NOM was defined as the need for a renal operation after 4 h from arrival. Univariate then multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of NOM failure., Results: Out of 8139 patients with kidney trauma, 1,842 had a penetrating mechanism of injury and were included. Of those, 89% were male, median age was 28 years, and 330 (18%) were offered NOM. Compared to IO, NOM patients were less likely to have gunshot wound (59% vs 89% p < 0.001) or high-grade renal injuries [AAST 4-5] (48% vs 76%, p < 0.001). Lower rates of in-hospital complications and shorter ICU and hospital stays were observed in the NOM group. NOM failed in 26 patients (8%). Independent predictors of NOM failure included a concomitant abdominal injury (OR = 3.99, 95% CI 1.03-23.23, p = 0.044), and every point increase in AAST grade (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.27-5.21, p = 0.005)., Conclusions: NOM is highly successful in selected patients. Concomitant abdominal injuries and higher grade AAST injuries predict NOM failure and should be considered when selecting patients for IO or NOM., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)