Search

Introduction: Failed extubation in critically ill patients is associated with poor outcomes. In critically ill trauma patients who have failed extubation, providers must decide whether to proceed with tracheostomy or attempt extubation again. The aim of this study was to describe the natural history of failed extubation in trauma patients and determine whether tracheostomy or a second attempt at extubation is more appropriate., Methods: Trauma patients admitted to our level I trauma center from 2013 to 2019 were identified. Patients who failed extubation, defined as an unplanned reintubation within 48 h of extubation, were included. Patients who immediately underwent tracheostomy were compared with those who had subsequent attempts at extubation. The primary outcome was mortality, and the secondary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), ventilator days, and hospital LOS., Results: The population included 93 patients who failed extubation and met inclusion criteria. A total of 53 patients were ultimately successfully extubated, whereas 40 patients underwent a tracheostomy. There was no statistically significant difference in demographics or injury patterns. Patients who underwent tracheostomy had a longer ICU LOS and more ventilator days. There was no difference in mortality or hospital LOS between the two groups., Conclusions: In trauma patients, those who underwent subsequent attempts at extubation did not experience higher rates of mortality than those who received a tracheostomy. Tracheostomy was associated with longer ICU LOS and ventilator days. In certain situations, it is appropriate to consider subsequent attempts at extubation in trauma patients who fail extubation rather than proceeding directly to tracheostomy., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Agitation on arrival in trauma patients is known as a sign of impending demise. The aim of this study is to determine outcomes for trauma patients who present in an agitated state. We hypothesized that agitation in the trauma bay is an early indicator for hemorrhage in trauma patients., Methods: We performed a single-institution prospective observational study from September 2018 to December 2020 that included any trauma patient who arrived agitated, defined as a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of +1 to +4. Variables collected included demographics, mechanism of injury, admission physiology, blood alcohol level, toxicity screen, and injury severity. The primary outcomes were need for massive transfusion (≥ 10 units) and need for emergent therapeutic intervention for hemorrhage control (laparotomy, preperitoneal pelvic packing, sternotomy, thoracotomy, or angioembolization)., Results: Of 4657 trauma admissions, 77 (2%) patients arrived agitated. Agitated patients were younger (40 versus 46, P = 0.03), predominantly male (94% versus 66%, P < 0.0001) sustained more penetrating trauma (31% versus 12%, P < 0.0001), had a lower systolic blood pressure (127 versus 137, P < 0.0001), and a higher Injury Severity Score (17 versus 9, P < 0.0001). On multivariable logistic regression, agitation was independently associated with massive transfusion (odds ratio: 2.63 [1.20-5.77], P = 0.02) and emergent therapeutic intervention for hemorrhage control (odds ratio: 2.60 [1.35-5.03], P = 0.005)., Conclusions: Agitation in trauma patients may serve as an early indicator of hemorrhagic shock, as agitation is independently associated with a two-fold increase in the need for massive transfusion and emergent therapeutic intervention for hemorrhage control., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)