Search

Background Current evidence-based screening algorithms for blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) may miss more than 30% of carotid or vertebral artery injuries. We implemented universal screening for BCVI with computed tomography angiography of the neck at our level 1 trauma center, hypothesizing that only universal screening would identify all clinically relevant BCVIs. Methods Adult blunt trauma activations from July 2017 to August 2019 underwent full-body computed tomography scan including computed tomography angiography neck with a 128-slice computed tomography scanner. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of common screening criteria. We determined independent risk factors for BCVI using multivariate analyses. Results A total of 4,659 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 2.7% (n = 126) of which had 158 BCVIs. For the criteria outlined in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program Best Practices Guidelines, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 72.2%, 64.9%, 6.8%, 98.5%, and 65.2%, respectively; for the risk factors suggested in the more extensive expanded Denver criteria, they were 82.5%, 50.4%, 5.3%, 98.9%, and 51.4%, respectively. Twenty-three percent (n = 14) of patients with BCVI grade 3 or higher would not have been captured by any screening criteria. Cervical spine, facial, and skull base fractures were the strongest predictors of BCVI with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of 8.1 (5.4-12.1), 5.7 (2.2-15.1), and 2.7 (1.5-4.7), respectively. Eighty-three percent (n = 105) of patients with BCVI received antiplatelet agents or therapeutic anticoagulation, with 4% (n = 5) experiencing a bleeding complication, 3% (n = 4) a BCVI progression, and 8% (n = 10) a stroke. Conclusion Almost 20% of patients with BCVI, including a quarter of those with BCVI grade 3 or higher, would have gone undiagnosed by even the most extensive and sensitive BCVI screening criteria. Implementation of universal screening should strongly be considered to ensure the detection of all clinically relevant BCVIs. Level of evidence Diagnostic study, level III.

BackgroundAccurate medication reconciliation in trauma patients is essential but difficult. Currently there is no established clinical method of detecting direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in trauma patients. We hypothesized that a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LCMS) based assay can be used to accurately detect DOACs in trauma patients upon hospital arrival.MethodsPlasma samples were collected from 356 patients who provided informed consent including-10 healthy controls, 19 known positive or negative controls and 327 trauma patients over 65 years of age who were evaluated at our large, urban Level 1 Trauma Center. The assay methodology was developed in healthy and known controls to detect apixaban, rivaroxaban and dabigatran using LCMS and then applied to 327 samples from trauma patients. Standard medication reconciliation processes in the electronic medical record documenting DOAC usage was compared with LCMS results to determine overall accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV) of the assay.ResultsOf 356 patients, 39 were on DOACs (10.96%): 21 were on Apixaban, 14 on rivaroxaban and 4 on dabigatran. The overall accuracy of the assay for detecting any DOAC was 98.60%, with a sensitivity of 94.87% and specificity of 99.06%, (PPV 92.50% and NPV 99.37%). The assay detected apixaban with a sensitivity of 90.48% and specificity of 99.11% (PPV 86.36% and NPV 99.40%). There were three false positive results and two false negative LCMS results for apixaban. Dabigatran and rivaroxaban were detected with 100% sensitivity and specificity.ConclusionsThis LCMS-based assay was highly accurate in detecting DOACs in trauma patients. Further studies need to confirm the clinical efficacy of this LCMS assay and its value for medication reconciliation in trauma patients.Study type: diagnostic testBasic Science paper: therefore does not require a level of evidence.

Fifty percent of women killed in intimate partner violence (IPV) were seen by a health care provider within a year of their death. As guest speaker to Virginia Commonwealth University Trauma Center (VCU-TC), Dr. James Davis (Western Trauma Association past president) challenged VCU-TC to develop a hospital-based IPV program. This research examines the development and impact of an integrated hospital/VCU-TC-based IPV program.The IPV survey was carried out to determine need for training and screening. Hospital forensic nurse examiners case logs were evaluated to determine IPV prevalence. An integrated IPV program-Project Empower was developed, consisting of staff education, patient screening, victim crisis fund, and interdisciplinary sexual assault/domestic violence intervention team. Between 2014 and 2018, patients admitted with an IPV consult to Project Empower were entered into a secure database capturing demographics, mechanisms, income data, and social determinants of risk. Program feasibility was evaluated on patient engagement via screening and case management. Program impact was evaluated on crisis intervention, safety planning, and community referral.Forensic nurse examiner data and IPV survey evaluation noted 20% IPV prevalence and lack of IPV screening and training. The IPV patients (N = 799) were women (90%), unmarried (79%) and African-American (60%). Primary mechanisms were firearm (44%) or stabbing (34%). Survivors were perpetrated by a cohabiting (42%) or dating partner (18%). Monthly income averaged US $622. Forty percent had no health insurance. Advocates provided 62% case management. Survivors received victim crisis funds (16%), safety planning (68%), crisis intervention (78%), sexual and domestic violence education (83%), and community referral (83%). Within 5 years, 35 (4%) were reinjured and seen in the emergency department. Thirty-one (4%) were readmitted for IPV-related injuries. Two deaths were attributed to IPV.Critical call for hospital-based IPV intervention programs as a priority for trauma centers to adopt cannot be underestimated but can be answered in a comprehensive integrated model.Therapeutic, level I.