Search

BackgroundPrehospital procedures (PHP) by emergency medical services (EMS) are performed regularly in penetrating trauma patients despite previous studies demonstrating no benefit. We sought to examine the influence of PHPs on outcomes in penetrating trauma patients in urban locations where transport to trauma center is not prolonged. We hypothesized that patients without PHPs would have better outcomes than those undergoing PHP.MethodsThis was an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored, multicenter, prospective, observational trial of adults (18+ years) with penetrating trauma to the torso and/or proximal extremity presenting at 25 urban trauma centers. The impact of PHPs and transport mechanism on in-hospital mortality were examined.ResultsOf 2,284 patients included, 1,386 (60.7%) underwent PHP. The patients were primarily Black (n = 1,527, 66.9%) males (n = 1,986, 87.5%) injured by gunshot wound (n = 1,510, 66.0%) with 34.1% (n = 726) having New Injury Severity Score of ≥16. A total of 1,427 patients (62.5%) were transported by Advanced Life Support EMS, 17.2% (n = 392) by private vehicle, 13.7% (n = 312) by police, and 6.7% (n = 153) by Basic Life Support EMS. Of the PHP patients, 69.1% received PHP on scene, 59.9% received PHP in route, and 29.0% received PHP both on scene and in route. Initial scene vitals differed between groups, but initial emergency department vitals did not. Receipt of ≥1 PHP increased mortality odds (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.83; p = 0.04). Logistic regression showed increased mortality with each PHP, whether on scene or during transport. Subset analysis of specific PHP revealed that intubation (OR, 10.76; 95% CI, 4.02-28.78; p < 0.001), C-spine immobilization (OR, 5.80; 95% CI, 1.85-18.26; p < 0.01), and pleural decompression (OR, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.33-10.28; p = 0.01) had the highest odds of mortality after adjusting for multiple variables.ConclusionPrehospital procedures in penetrating trauma patients impart no survival advantage and may be harmful in urban settings, even when performed during transport. Therefore, PHP should be forgone in lieu of immediate transport to improve patient outcomes.Level of evidencePrognostic, level III.

ObjectiveEvidence comparing stoma creation (STM) versus anastomosis after urgent or emergent colorectal resection is limited. This study examined outcomes after colorectal resection in emergency general surgery patients.MethodsThis was an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored prospective observational multicenter study of patients undergoing urgent/emergent colorectal resection. Twenty-one centers enrolled patients for 11 months. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables were recorded. χ, Mann-Whitney U test, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to describe outcomes and risk factors for surgical complication/mortality.ResultsA total of 439 patients were enrolled (ANST, 184; STM, 255). The median (interquartile range) age was 62 (53-71) years, and the median Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was 4 (1-6). The most common indication for surgery was diverticulitis (28%). Stoma group was older (64 vs. 58 years, p < 0.001), had a higher CCI, and were more likely to be immunosuppressed. Preoperatively, STM patients were more likely to be intubated (57 vs. 15, p < 0.001), on vasopressors (61 vs. 13, p < 0.001), have pneumoperitoneum (131 vs. 41, p < 0.001) or fecal contamination (114 vs. 33, p < 0.001), and had a higher incidence of elevated lactate (149 vs. 67, p < 0.001). Overall mortality was 13%, which was higher in STM patients (18% vs. 8%, p = 0.02). Surgical complications were more common in STM patients (35% vs. 25%, p = 0.02). On multivariable analysis, management with an open abdomen, intraoperative blood transfusion, and larger hospital size were associated with development of a surgical complication, while CCI, preoperative vasopressor use, steroid use, open abdomen, and intraoperative blood transfusion were independently associated with mortality.ConclusionThis study highlights a tendency to perform fecal diversion in patients who are acutely ill at presentation. There is a higher morbidity and mortality rate in STM patients. Independent predictors of mortality include CCI, preoperative vasopressor use, steroid use, open abdomen, and intraoperative blood transfusion. Following adjustment by clinical factors, method of colon management was not associated with surgical complications or mortality.Level of evidenceTherapeutic study, level IV.

BackgroundIn 2018, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) published revisions to the renal injury grading system to reflect the increased reliance on computed tomography scans and non-operative management of high-grade renal trauma (HGRT). We aimed to evaluate how these revisions will change the grading of HGRT and if it outperforms the original 1989 grading in predicting bleeding control interventions.MethodsData on HGRT were collected from 14 Level-1 trauma centers from 2014 to 2017. Patients with initial computed tomography scans were included. Two radiologists reviewed the scans to regrade the injuries according to the 1989 and 2018 AAST grading systems. Descriptive statistics were used to assess grade reclassifications. Mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression was used to measure the predictive ability of each grading system. The areas under the curves were compared.ResultsOf the 322 injuries included, 27.0% were upgraded, 3.4% were downgraded, and 69.5% remained unchanged. Of the injuries graded as III or lower using the 1989 AAST, 33.5% were upgraded to grade IV using the 2018 AAST. Of the grade V injuries, 58.8% were downgraded using the 2018 AAST. There was no statistically significant difference in the overall areas under the curves between the 2018 and 1989 AAST grading system for predicting bleeding interventions (0.72 vs. 0.68, p = 0.34).ConclusionAbout one third of the injuries previously classified as grade III will be upgraded to grade IV using the 2018 AAST, which adds to the heterogeneity of grade IV injuries. Although the 2018 AAST grading provides more anatomic details on injury patterns and includes important radiologic findings, it did not outperform the 1989 AAST grading in predicting bleeding interventions.Level of evidencePrognostic and Epidemiological Study, level III.

BACKGROUND:Indications for intervention after high-grade renal trauma (HGRT) remain poorly defined. Certain radiographic findings can be used to guide the management of HGRT. We aimed to assess the associations between initial radiographic findings and interventions for hemorrhage after HGRT and to determine hematoma and laceration sizes predicting interventions. METHODS:The Genito-Urinary Trauma Study is a multi-center study including HGRT patients from 14 Level-1 trauma centers from 2014-2017. Admission CT scans were categorized based upon multiple variables, including vascular contrast extravasation (VCE), hematoma rim distance (HRD), and size of the deepest laceration. Renal bleeding interventions included: angioembolization, surgical packing, renorrhaphy, partial nephrectomy, and nephrectomy. Mixed effect Poisson regression was used to assess the associations. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to define optimal cut-offs for HRD and laceration size. RESULTS:In the 326 patients, injury mechanism was blunt in 81%. Forty-seven patients (14%) underwent 51 bleeding interventions including 19 renal angioembolizations, 16 nephrectomies, and 16 other procedures. In univariable analysis, presence of VCE was associated with a 5.9-fold increase in risk of interventions, and each centimeter increase in HRD was associated with 30% increase in risk of bleeding interventions. An HRD ≥3.5cm and renal laceration depth of ≥2.5cm were most predictive of interventions. In multivariable models, VCE and HRD were significantly associated with bleeding interventions. CONCLUSION:Our findings support the importance of certain radiographic findings in prediction of bleeding interventions after HGRT. These factors can be used as adjuncts to renal injury grading to guide clinical decision making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic and Epidemiological Study, Level III.

BackgroundThe management of high-grade renal trauma (HGRT) and the indications for intervention are not well defined. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) renal grading does not incorporate some important clinical and radiologic variables associated with increased risk of interventions. We aimed to use data from a multi-institutional contemporary cohort to develop a nomogram predicting risk of interventions for bleeding after HGRT.MethodsFrom 2014 to 2017, data on adult HGRT (AAST grades III-V) were collected from 14 level 1 trauma centers. Patients with both clinical and radiologic data were included. Data were gathered on demographics, injury characteristics, management, and outcomes. Clinical and radiologic parameters, obtained after trauma evaluation, were used to predict renal bleeding interventions. We developed a prediction model by applying backward model selection to a logistic regression model and built a nomogram using the selected model.ResultsA total of 326 patients met the inclusion criteria. Mechanism of injury was blunt in 81%. Median age and injury severity score were 28 years and 22, respectively. Injuries were reported as AAST grades III (60%), IV (33%), and V (7%). Overall, 47 (14%) underwent interventions for bleeding control including 19 renal angioembolizations, 16 nephrectomies, and 12 other procedures. Of the variables included in the nomogram, a hematoma size of 12 cm contributed the most points, followed by penetrating trauma mechanism, vascular contrast extravasation, pararenal hematoma extension, concomitant injuries, and shock. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.85).ConclusionWe developed a nomogram that integrates multiple clinical and radiologic factors readily available upon assessment of patients with HGRT and can provide predicted probability for bleeding interventions. This nomogram may help in guiding appropriate management of HGRT and decreasing unnecessary interventions.Level of evidencePrognostic and epidemiological study, level III.

BACKGROUND:Indications for intervention after high-grade renal trauma (HGRT) remain poorly defined. Certain radiographic findings can be used to guide the management of HGRT. We aimed to assess the associations between initial radiographic findings and interventions for hemorrhage after HGRT and to determine hematoma and laceration sizes predicting interventions. METHODS:The Genito-Urinary Trauma Study is a multi-center study including HGRT patients from 14 Level-1 trauma centers from 2014-2017. Admission CT scans were categorized based upon multiple variables, including vascular contrast extravasation (VCE), hematoma rim distance (HRD), and size of the deepest laceration. Renal bleeding interventions included: angioembolization, surgical packing, renorrhaphy, partial nephrectomy, and nephrectomy. Mixed effect Poisson regression was used to assess the associations. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to define optimal cut-offs for HRD and laceration size. RESULTS:In the 326 patients, injury mechanism was blunt in 81%. Forty-seven patients (14%) underwent 51 bleeding interventions including 19 renal angioembolizations, 16 nephrectomies, and 16 other procedures. In univariable analysis, presence of VCE was associated with a 5.9-fold increase in risk of interventions, and each centimeter increase in HRD was associated with 30% increase in risk of bleeding interventions. An HRD ≥3.5cm and renal laceration depth of ≥2.5cm were most predictive of interventions. In multivariable models, VCE and HRD were significantly associated with bleeding interventions. CONCLUSION:Our findings support the importance of certain radiographic findings in prediction of bleeding interventions after HGRT. These factors can be used as adjuncts to renal injury grading to guide clinical decision making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic and Epidemiological Study, Level III.

BackgroundExcretory phase computed tomography (CT) scan is used for diagnosis of renal collecting system injuries and accurate grading of high-grade renal trauma. However, optimal timing of the excretory phase is not well established. We hypothesized that there is an association between excretory phase timing and diagnosis of urinary extravasation and aimed to identify the optimal excretory phase timing for diagnosis of urinary extravasation.MethodsThe Genito-Urinary Trauma Study collected data on high-grade renal trauma (grades III-V) from 14 Level I trauma centers between 2014 and 2017. The time between portal venous and excretory phases at initial CT scans was recorded. Poisson regression was used to measure the association between excretory phase timing and diagnosis of urinary extravasation. Predictive receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to identify a cutoff point optimizing detection of urinary extravasation.ResultsOverall, 326 patients were included; 245 (75%) had excretory phase CT scans for review either initially (n = 212) or only at their follow-up (n = 33). At initial CT with excretory phase, 46 (22%) of 212 patients were diagnosed with urinary extravasation. Median time between portal venous and excretory phases was 4 minutes (interquartile range, 4-7 minutes). Time of initial excretory phase was significantly greater in those diagnosed with urinary extravasation. Increased time to excretory phase was positively associated with finding urinary extravasation at the initial CT scan after controlling for multiple factors (risk ratio per minute, 1.15; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.22; p < 0.001). The optimal delay for detection of urinary extravasation was 9 minutes.ConclusionTiming of the excretory phase is a significant factor in accurate diagnosis of renal collecting system injury. A 9-minute delay between the early and excretory phases optimized detection of urinary extravasation.Level of evidenceDiagnostic tests/criteria study, level III.

BackgroundThe rarity of renal trauma limits its study and the strength of evidence-based guidelines. Although management of renal injuries has shifted toward a nonoperative approach, nephrectomy remains the most common intervention for high-grade renal trauma (HGRT). We aimed to describe the contemporary management of HGRT in the United States and also evaluate clinical factors associated with nephrectomy after HGRT.MethodsFrom 2014 to 2017, data on HGRT (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades III-V) were collected from 14 participating Level-1 trauma centers. Data were gathered on demographics, injury characteristics, management, and short-term outcomes. Management was classified into three groups-expectant, conservative/minimally invasive, and open operative. Descriptive statistics were used to report management of renal trauma. Univariate and multivariate logistic mixed effect models with clustering by facility were used to look at associations between proposed risk factors and nephrectomy.ResultsA total of 431 adult HGRT were recorded; 79% were male, and mechanism of injury was blunt in 71%. Injuries were graded as III, IV, and V in 236 (55%), 142 (33%), and 53 (12%), respectively. Laparotomy was performed in 169 (39%) patients. Overall, 300 (70%) patients were managed expectantly and 47 (11%) underwent conservative/minimally invasive management. Eighty-four (19%) underwent renal-related open operative management with 55 (67%) of them undergoing nephrectomy. Nephrectomy rates were 15% and 62% for grades IV and V, respectively. Penetrating injuries had significantly higher American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades and higher rates of nephrectomy. In multivariable analysis, only renal injury grade and penetrating mechanism of injury were significantly associated with undergoing nephrectomy.ConclusionExpectant and conservative management is currently utilized in 80% of HGRT; however, the rate of nephrectomy remains high. Clinical factors, such as surrogates of hemodynamic instability and metabolic acidosis, are associated with nephrectomy for HGRT; however, higher renal injury grade and penetrating trauma remain the strongest associations.Level of evidencePrognostic/epidemiologic study, level III; Therapeutic study, level IV.

BackgroundUnconscious patients who present after being "found down" represent a unique triage challenge. These patients are selected for either trauma or medical evaluation based on limited information and have been shown in a single-center study to have significant occult injuries and/or missed medical diagnoses. We sought to further characterize this population in a multicenter study and to identify predictors of mistriage.MethodsThe Western Trauma Association Multicenter Trials Committee conducted a retrospective study of patients categorized as found down by emergency department triage diagnosis at seven major trauma centers. Demographic, clinical, and outcome data were collected. Mistriage was defined as patients being admitted to a non-triage-activated service. Logistic regression was used to assess predictors of specified outcomes.ResultsOf 661 patients, 33% were triaged to trauma evaluations, and 67% were triaged to medical evaluations; 56% of all patients had traumatic injuries. Trauma-triaged patients had significantly higher rates of combined injury and a medical diagnosis and underwent more computed tomographic imaging; they had lower rates of intoxication and homelessness. Among the 432 admitted patients, 17% of them were initially mistriaged. Even among properly triaged patients, 23% required cross-consultation from the non-triage-activated service after admission. Age was an independent predictor of mistriage, with a doubling of the rate for groups older than 70 years. Combined medical diagnosis and injury was also predictive of mistriage. Mistriaged patients had a trend toward increased late-identified injuries, but mistriage was not associated with increased length of stay or mortality.ConclusionPatients who are found down experience significant rates of mistriage and triage discordance requiring cross-consultation. Although the majority of found down patients are triaged to nontrauma evaluation, more than half have traumatic injuries. Characteristics associated with increased rates of mistriage, including advanced age, may be used to improve resource use and minimize missed injury in this vulnerable patient population.Level of evidenceEpidemiologic study, level III.

Background: Assessment of patient satisfaction is central to understanding and improving system performance with the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) national standard survey. However, no large, multi-institutional study exists, which examines the role of nurses in trauma patient satisfaction. Objective: To assess the impact of nurses on trauma patient satisfaction. Methods: This retrospective, descriptive study of Level I–IV trauma centers in a multistate hospital system evaluated patients 18 years and older admitted with at least an overnight stay. Data were obtained electronically for patients discharged in 2018–2019 who returned an HCAHPS survey. Surveys were linked by an honest broker to demographic and injury data from the trauma registry, and then anonymized prior to analysis. Patients were categorized as "trauma" per the National Trauma Data Standard (NTDS) definition or as "medical" or "surgical" per the HCAHPS definition. Results: Of 112,283 surveys from 89 trauma centers, "trauma" patients (n = 5,126) comprised 4.6%, "surgical" 39.0% (n = 43,763), and "medical" 56.5% (n = 63,394). Nurses had an overwhelming impact on "trauma" patient satisfaction, accounting for 63.9% (p <.001) of the variation (adjusted R2) in the overall score awarded the institution—larger than for "surgery" (59.6%; p <.001) or "medical" (58.4%; p <.001) patients. The most important individual domain contributor to the overall rating of a facility was "nursing communication." Conclusions: The magnitude of the effect of trauma nurses was noteworthy, with their communication ability being the single biggest driver of institutional ratings. These data provide insight for future performance benchmark development and emphasize the critical impact of trauma nurses on the trauma patient experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]