Search

Objectives: As sepsis hospitalizations have increased, in-hospital sepsis deaths have declined. However, reported rates may remain higher among racial/ethnic minorities. Most previous studies have adjusted primarily for age and sex. The effect of other patient and hospital characteristics on disparities in sepsis mortality is not yet well-known. Furthermore, coding practices in claims data may influence findings. The objective of this study was to use a broad method of capturing sepsis cases to estimate 2004-2013 trends in risk-adjusted in-hospital sepsis mortality rates by race/ethnicity to inform efforts to reduce disparities in sepsis deaths.Design: Retrospective, repeated cross-sectional study.Setting: Acute care hospitals in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases for 18 states with consistent race/ethnicity reporting.Patients: Patients diagnosed with septicemia, sepsis, organ dysfunction plus infection, severe sepsis, or septic shock.Measurements and Main Results: In-hospital sepsis mortality rates adjusted for patient and hospital factors by race/ethnicity were calculated. From 2004 to 2013, sepsis hospitalizations for all racial/ethnic groups increased, and mortality rates decreased by 5-7% annually. Mortality rates adjusted for patient characteristics were higher for all minority groups than for white patients. After adjusting for hospital characteristics, sepsis mortality rates in 2013 were similar for white (92.0 per 1,000 sepsis hospitalizations), black (94.0), and Hispanic (93.5) patients but remained elevated for Asian/Pacific Islander (106.4) and "other" (104.7; p < 0.001) racial/ethnic patients.Conclusions: Our results indicate that hospital characteristics contribute to higher rates of sepsis mortality for blacks and Hispanics. These findings underscore the importance of ensuring that improved sepsis identification and management is implemented across all hospitals, especially those serving diverse populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare rates of reduction loss, nonunion, and infection in intra-articular distal tibia fractures (IADTF) treated with limited open reduction internal fixation and intramedullary nailing (IMN) as compared to open reduction internal fixation with plate and screws (plate fixation [PF])., Design: Retrospective review., Setting: Level-I academic trauma center., Patient Selection Criteria: Patients age ≥ 18 with OTA/AO 43C1 and C2 IADTF treated with IMN or PF between 2013-2021., Outcome Measures and Comparisons: Loss of reduction, surgical site infection (SSI), nonunion, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared for IMN versus PF treatments., Results: One hundred ten patients met the inclusion criteria (IMN 33 and PF 77). There was no loss of reduction found. Seventeen nonunions (15% overall; IMN 4/33 and PF 13/77) and 13 SSIs (12% overall; IMN 2/33 and PF11/77) were identified. Despite several risk factors being identified for nonunion and SSI in bivariate analysis, only open fracture remained significant as a risk factor for both nonunion (odds ratio 0.09 for closed fracture, 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.56, P = 0.009) and SSI (odds ratio 0.07 for closed fracture, 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.26, P = 0.012) in the multivariate model. Propensity scoring based on presurgical variables was significantly different between patients who received IMN versus PF ( P = 0.03); however, logistic regression incorporating the propensity score revealed no significant association with nonunion and SSI. Adjusting for the propensity score, there remained no association comparing IMN versus PF with nonunion and SSI ( P = 0.54 and P = 0.17, respectively). There was also no difference in PROs between IMN and PF (physical function: P = 0.25 and pain interference: P = 0.21)., Conclusions: Overall nonunion and SSI prevalence was 15% and 12%, respectively, in operatively treated OTA/AO 43C1 and C2 IADTF. An open fracture was a significant risk factor for nonunion and SSI. Metaphyseal fixation through IMN or PF did not affect loss of reduction, nonunion, SSI, or PROs., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To compare debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) and intramedullary nail (IMN) removal with subsequent strategy for fracture stabilization in the treatment of tibia fracture-related infections (FRIs) occurring within 90 days of initial IMN placement., Design: Retrospective case-control., Setting: Four academic, Level 1 trauma centers., Patients: Sixty-six patients who subsequently received unplanned operative treatment for FRI diagnosed within 90 days of initial tibia IMN., Intervention: DAIR versus IMN removal pathways., Main Outcome Measurements: Fracture union., Results: Twenty-eight patients (42.4%) were treated with DAIR and 38 (57.6%) via IMN removal with subsequent strategy for fracture stabilization. Mean follow-up was 16.3 months. At final follow-up, ultimate bone healing was achieved in 75.8% (47/62), whereas 24.2% (15/62) had persistent nonunion or amputation. No significant difference was observed in ultimate bone healing ( P = 0.216) comparing DAIR and IMN removal. Factors associated with persistent nonunion or amputation were time from injury to initial IMN ( P < 0.001), McPherson systemic host grade B ( P = 0.046), and increasing open-fracture grade, with Gustilo-Anderson IIIB/IIIC fractures being the worst ( P = 0.009). Fewer surgeries after initial FRI treatment were positively associated with ultimate bone healing ( P = 0.029)., Conclusions: Treatment of FRI within 90 days of tibial IMN with DAIR or IMN removal with subsequent strategy for fracture stabilization results in a high rate, nearly 1 in 4, of persistent nonunion or amputation, with neither appearing superior for improving bone healing outcomes., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflict of interest related to this work., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)