Search

BackgroundThe Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) Guidelines for the Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) include intracranial pressure monitoring (ICPM), yet very little is known about ICPM in older adults. Our objectives were to characterize the utilization of ICPM in older adults and identify factors associated with ICPM in those who met the BTF guidelines.MethodsWe analyzed data from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Geriatric TBI Study, a registry study conducted among individuals with isolated, CT-confirmed TBI across 45 trauma centers. The analysis was restricted to those aged ≥60. Independent factors associated with ICPM for those who did and did not meet the BTF guidelines were identified using logistic regression.ResultsOur sample was composed of 2303 patients, of whom 66 (2.9%) underwent ICPM. Relative to Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 13 to 15, GCS score of 9 to 12 (OR 10.2; 95% CI 4.3 to 24.4) and GCS score of DiscussionWorsening GCS, intraparenchymal/intraventricular hemorrhage, and skull fractures were associated with ICPM among older adults with TBI, yet utilization of ICPM remains low, especially among those meeting the BTF guidelines, and potential benefits remain unclear. This study highlights the need for better understanding of factors that influence compliance with BTF guidelines and the risks versus benefits of ICPM in this population.Level of evidencePrognostic and epidemiological, level III.

BackgroundUnplanned intensive care unit (ICU) readmission—ICU bounce back (ICUbb)—is associated with worse outcomes. Patients not requiring organ system support or intensive nursing are deemed ‘ICU discharge ready’ and transfer orders are placed. However, actual transfer only occurs when an appropriate, non-ICU bed is available. This is dependent on inherent system inefficiencies resulting in a naturally controlled experiment between when patients actually transfer: Early (24 hours) transfers, after order placement. This study leverages that natural experiment to determine if additional ICU time is protective against ICUbb. We hypothesize that Delayed transfer is protective against ICUbb.MethodsUsing a retrospective, cohort design, we queried a trauma research repository and electronic medical record during a 10-year period to capture traumatized patients admitted to the ICU. Patients were categorized into Early (24 hours) groups based on actual transfer time after order placement. Patient characteristics (age, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)) and Injury Severity Score (ISS) were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare ICUbb rates among Early and Unintended-Delayed groups.ResultsOf the 2004 patients who met the criteria, 1690 fell into the Early group, and 314 fell into the Delayed. The Early group was younger (mean age 52±23 vs. 55±22 years), had fewer comorbidities (median CCI score 1 (0, 3) vs. 2 (1, 3)), and was less injured (median ISS 17 (10–22) vs. 17 (13–25)), all pDiscussionDespite higher age, CCI score, and ISS, the Unintended-Delayed group experienced fewer ICUbb. After controlling for age, CCI and ISS, Delayed transfer reduced ICUbb risk by 78%. Specific care elements affording this protection remain to be elucidated.Level of evidenceLevel III.Study typeTherapeutic study.

As trauma surgeons, we focus on the immediate care and needs of the injured patient every day. Historically, trauma and injury research has focused on outcomes such as mortality, complications, and length of stay; and process metrics such as time to CT scan, resuscitation checklist frequencies, or venous thromboembolism prophylaxis rates. These outcomes are perceived by healthcare providers to be important, but patients likely have different perceptions of what outcomes are most important to measure and improve. True patient-centered outcomes research involves the healthcare providers, and the entire team of stakeholders including patients and the community. Understanding the process of stakeholder engagement and the barriers trauma researchers must overcome to effectively enter this field of research is important. This summary aims to inform the trauma research community on the basics of patient-centered outcomes research, priorities for funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, resources for collaboration around patient-centered outcomes research, and a unique career development and training opportunity for early career trauma surgeons to develop a skill set in patient-centered outcomes research.

ObjectivesComparisons of risk-adjusted trauma mortality between high-income countries and low and middle-income countries (LMICs) can be used to identify specific patient populations and injury patterns for targeted interventions. Due to a paucity of granular patient and injury data from LMICs, there is a lack of such comparisons. This study aims to identify independent predictors of trauma mortality and significant differences between India and the USA.MethodsA retrospective cohort study of two trauma databases was conducted. Demographic, injury, physiologic, anatomic and outcome data were analyzed from India’s Towards Improved Trauma Care Outcomes project database and the US National Trauma Data Bank from 2013 to 2015. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine significant independent predictors of mortality.Results687 407 adult trauma patients were included (India 11 796; USA 675 611). Patients from India were significantly younger with greater male preponderance, a higher proportion presented with physiologic abnormalities and suffered higher mortality rates (23.2% vs. 2.8%). When controlling for age, sex, physiologic abnormalities, and injury severity, sustaining an injury in India was the strongest predictor of mortality (OR 13.85, 95% CI 13.05 to 14.69). On subgroup analyses, the greatest mortality difference was seen in patients with lower Injury Severity Scores.ConclusionAfter adjusting for demographic, physiologic abnormalities, and injury severity, trauma-related mortality was found to be significantly higher in India. When compared with trauma patients in the USA, the odds of mortality are most notably different among patients with lower Injury Severity Scores. While troubling, this suggests that relatively simple, low-cost interventions focused on standard timely trauma care, early imaging, and protocolized treatment pathways could result in substantial improvements for injury mortality in India, and potentially other LMICs.Level of evidenceLevel 3, retrospective cohort study.

This paper describes the current funding, infrastructure growth and future state of trauma research. It also introduces a group of review articles generated from The Future of Trauma Research: Innovations in Research Methodology conference hosted by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma in July 2019.