Search

Background In-field triage tools for trauma patients are limited by availability of information, linear risk classification, and a lack of confidence reporting. We therefore set out to develop and test a machine learning algorithm that can overcome these limitations by accurately and confidently making predictions to support in-field triage in the first hours after traumatic injury. Methods Using an American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program-derived database of truncal and junctional gunshot wound (GSW) patients (aged 16-60 years), we trained an information-aware Dirichlet deep neural network (field artificial intelligence triage). Using supervised training, field artificial intelligence triage was trained to predict shock and the need for major hemorrhage control procedures or early massive transfusion (MT) using GSW anatomical locations, vital signs, and patient information available in the field. In parallel, a confidence model was developed to predict the true-class probability (scale of 0-1), indicating the likelihood that the prediction made was correct, based on the values and interconnectivity of input variables. Results A total of 29,816 patients met all the inclusion criteria. Shock, major surgery, and early MT were identified in 13.0%, 22.4%, and 6.3% of the included patients, respectively. Field artificial intelligence triage achieved mean areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89, 0.86, and 0.82 for prediction of shock, early MT, and major surgery, respectively, for 80/20 train-test splits over 1,000 epochs. Mean predicted true-class probability for errors/correct predictions was 0.25/0.87 for shock, 0.30/0.81 for MT, and 0.24/0.69 for major surgery. Conclusion Field artificial intelligence triage accurately identifies potential shock in truncal GSW patients and predicts their need for MT and major surgery, with a high degree of certainty. The presented model is an important proof of concept. Future iterations will use an expansion of databases to refine and validate the model, further adding to its potential to improve triage in the field, both in civilian and military settings. Level of evidence Prognostic, Level III.

In resource-limited countries, open appendectomy is still performed under general anesthesia (GA) or neuraxial anesthesia (NA). We sought to compare the postoperative outcomes of appendectomy under NA versus GA. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the International Patterns of Opioid Prescribing (iPOP) multicenter study. All patients ≥ 16 years-old who underwent an open appendectomy between October 2016 and March 2017 in one of the 14 participating hospitals were included. Patients were stratified into two groups: NA—defined as spinal or epidural—and GA. All-cause morbidity, hospital length of stay (LOS), and pain severity were assessed using univariate analysis followed by multivariable logistic regression adjusting for the following preoperative characteristics: age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, history of opioid use, emergency status, and country. A total of 655 patients were included, 353 of which were in the NA group and 302 in the GA group. The countries operating under NA were Colombia (39%), Thailand (31%), China (23%), and Brazil (7%). Overall, NA patients were younger (mean age (SD): 34.5 (14.4) vs. 40.7 (17.9), p-value 3 days, OR, 95% CI: 0.47 [0.32–0.68]) compared to GA. There was no difference in postoperative pain severity between the two techniques. Open appendectomy performed under NA is associated with improved outcomes compared to that performed under GA. Further randomized controlled studies should examine the safety and value of NA in lower abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: We sought to describe characteristics, multisystem outcomes, and predictors of mortality of the critically ill COVID-19 patients in the largest hospital in Massachusetts. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study. All patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection between March 14, 2020, and April 28, 2020, were included; hospital and multisystem outcomes were evaluated. Data were collected from electronic records. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was defined as PaO2/FiO2 ratio of ≤300 during admission and bilateral radiographic pulmonary opacities. Multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusting for available confounders were performed to identify predictors of mortality. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients were included. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 5 (3-8), and the median (IQR) PaO2/FiO2 was 208 (146-300) with 86.4% of patients meeting criteria for ARDS. The median (IQR) follow-up was 92 (86-99) days, and the median ICU length of stay was 16 (8-25) days; 62.1% of patients were proned, 49.8% required neuromuscular blockade, and 3.4% required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The most common complications were shock (88.9%), acute kidney injury (AKI) (69.8%), secondary bacterial pneumonia (70.6%), and pressure ulcers (51.1%). As of July 8, 2020, 175 patients (74.5%) were discharged alive (61.7% to skilled nursing or rehabilitation facility), 58 (24.7%) died in the hospital, and only 2 patients were still hospitalized, but out of the ICU. Age (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.12), higher median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at ICU admission (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06-1.43), elevated creatine kinase of ≥1,000 U/L at hospital admission (OR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.51-29.17), and severe ARDS (OR, 5.24; 95% CI, 1.18-23.29) independently predicted hospital mortality.Comorbidities, steroids, and hydroxychloroquine treatment did not predict mortality. CONCLUSION: We present here the outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Age, acuity of disease, and severe ARDS predicted mortality rather than comorbidities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III.

Introduction Whole blood (WB) resuscitation has been associated with a mortality benefit in trauma patients. Several small series report the safe use of WB in the pediatric trauma population. We performed a subgroup analysis of the pediatric patients from a large prospective multicenter trial comparing patients receiving WB or blood component therapy (BCT) during trauma resuscitation. We hypothesized that WB resuscitation would be safe compared to BCT resuscitation in pediatric trauma patients. Methods This study included pediatric trauma patients (0-17 y), from ten level-I trauma centers, who received any blood transfusion during initial resuscitation. Patients were included in the WB group if they received at least one unit of WB during their resuscitation, and the BCT group was composed of patients receiving traditional blood product resuscitation. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality with secondary outcomes being complications. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess for mortality and complications in those treated with WB vs BCT. Results Ninety patients, with both penetrating and blunt mechanisms of injury (MOI), were enrolled in the study (WB: 62 (69%), BCT: 28 (21%)). Whole blood patients were more likely to be male. There were no differences in age, MOI, shock index, or injury severity score between groups. On logistic regression, there was no difference in complications. Mortality was not different between the groups ( P = .983). Conclusion Our data suggest WB resuscitation is safe when compared to BCT resuscitation in the care of critically injured pediatric trauma patients.

Patients in the US receive disproportionally higher amounts of opioids after operations compared with their non-US counterparts. We aimed to assess the relationship between perceived pain severity after operation and the amount of opioid medications prescribed at discharge in US vs non-US patients.We conducted a post-hoc analysis of the International Patterns of Opioid Prescribing multicenter study. Patients 16 years and older who underwent appendectomy, cholecystectomy, or inguinal herniorrhaphy in 1 of 14 participating hospitals across 8 countries between October 2016 and March 2017 were included. In hospitals where pain severity was assessed using a 0 to 10 visual analog scale before hospital discharge, patients were stratified into the following groups, depending on the pain severity: none, mild (1 to 3), moderate (4 to 6), and severe (7 to 10). The number of opioid prescriptions, total number of pills, and oral morphine equivalents prescribed were calculated for each group and US and non-US patients were compared.A total of 2,024 patients were included. Eighty-three percent of US patients without pain were prescribed opioids compared with 8.7% of non-US patients without pain (p0.001). The number of opioid prescriptions, number of pills, and oral morphine equivalents prescribed were similar across the 4 pain severity groups in US patients (p0.05). In contrast, the number of opioid prescriptions, number of opioid pills, and oral morphine equivalents prescribed among non-US patients were incrementally higher as the pain severity progressed from no pain to severe pain (all, p0.05).US patients are prescribed opioids at high rates and doses regardless of pain severity. Additional efforts should be directed toward tailoring opioid prescriptions to patients' needs.

BACKGROUND The Emergency Surgery Score (ESS) is a point-based scoring system validated to predict mortality and morbidity in emergency general surgery (EGS). In addition to demographics and comorbidities, ESS accounts for the acuity of disease at presentation. We sought to examine whether ESS can predict the destination of discharge of EGS patients, as a proxy for quality of life at discharge. METHODS Using the 2007 to 2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, we identified all EGS patients. EGS cases were defined as per American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program as those performed by a general surgeon within a short interval from diagnosis or the onset of related symptomatology, when the patient's well-being and outcome may be threatened by unnecessary delay and patient's status could deteriorate unpredictably or rapidly. Emergency Surgery Score patients were then categorized by their discharge disposition to home versus rehabilitation or nursing facilities. All patients with missing ESS or discharge disposition and those discharged to hospice, senior communities, or separate acute care facilities were excluded. Emergency Surgery Score was calculated for each patient. C statistics were used to study the correlation between ESS and the destination of discharge. RESULTS Of 6,485,915 patients, 84,694 were included. The mean age was 57 years, 51% were female, and 79.6% were discharged home. The mean ESS was 5. Emergency Surgery Score accurately and reliably predicted the discharge destination with a C statistic of 0.83. For example, ESS of 1, 10, and 20 were associated with 0.9%, 56.5%, and 100% rates of discharge to a rehabilitation or nursing facility instead of home. CONCLUSION Emergency Surgery Score accurately predicts which EGS patients require discharge to rehabilitation or nursing facilities and can thus be used for preoperatively counseling patients and families and for improving early discharge preparations, when appropriate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

In resource-limited countries, open appendectomy is still performed under general anesthesia (GA) or neuraxial anesthesia (NA). We sought to compare the postoperative outcomes of appendectomy under NA versus GA.We conducted a post hoc analysis of the International Patterns of Opioid Prescribing (iPOP) multicenter study. All patients ≥ 16 years-old who underwent an open appendectomy between October 2016 and March 2017 in one of the 14 participating hospitals were included. Patients were stratified into two groups: NA-defined as spinal or epidural-and GA. All-cause morbidity, hospital length of stay (LOS), and pain severity were assessed using univariate analysis followed by multivariable logistic regression adjusting for the following preoperative characteristics: age, gender, body mass index (BMI), smoking, history of opioid use, emergency status, and country.A total of 655 patients were included, 353 of which were in the NA group and 302 in the GA group. The countries operating under NA were Colombia (39%), Thailand (31%), China (23%), and Brazil (7%). Overall, NA patients were younger (mean age (SD): 34.5 (14.4) vs. 40.7 (17.9), p-value 0.001) and had a lower BMI (mean (SD): 23.5 (3.8) vs. 24.3 (5.2), p-value = 0.040) than GA patients. On multivariable analysis, NA was independently associated with less postoperative complications (OR, 95% CI: 0.30 [0.10-0.94]) and shorter hospital LOS (LOS 3 days, OR, 95% CI: 0.47 [0.32-0.68]) compared to GA. There was no difference in postoperative pain severity between the two techniques.Open appendectomy performed under NA is associated with improved outcomes compared to that performed under GA. Further randomized controlled studies should examine the safety and value of NA in lower abdominal surgery.

Background: Bedside experience and studies of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) indicate COVID-19 to be a devastating multisystem disease. We aim to describe the incidence, associated variables, and outcomes of rhabdomyolysis in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Materials and Methods: Data for all critically ill adult patients (≥18 years old) admitted to the ICU at a large academic medical center with confirmed COVID-19 between March 13, 2020 and April 18, 2020 were prospectively collected. Patients with serum creatine kinase (CK) concentrations greater than 1000 U/L were diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis. Patients were further stratified as having moderate (serum CK concentration 1000-4999 U/L) or severe (serum CK concentration ≥5000 U/L) rhabdomyolysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify outcomes and variables associated with the development of rhabdomyolysis. Results: Of 235 critically ill COVID-19 patients, 114 (48.5%) met diagnostic criteria for rhabdomyolysis. Patients with rhabdomyolysis more often required mechanical ventilation (p-value

Background: Patients on prehospital anticoagulation with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a vulnerable subset of the trauma population. While protocolized warfarin reversal is widely available and easily implemented, prehospital anticoagulation with DOAC is cost prohibitive with only a few reversal options. This study aims to compare hospital outcomes of non-head injured trauma patients taking pre-injury DOAC versus warfarin.Methods: A retrospective cohort study at a level 1 trauma center was performed. All adult trauma patients with pre-injury anticoagulation admitted between January 2015 and December 2018, were stratified into DOAC-using and warfarin-using groups. Patients were excluded if they had traumatic brain injury (TBI). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Outcomes measures included inhospital mortality, blood transfusion requirements, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS and discharge disposition.Results: 374 non-TBI trauma patients on anticoagulation were identified, of which 134 were on DOACs and 240 on warfarin. Patients on DOACs had a higher ISS (9 [IQR, 9-10] vs. 9 [IQR, 5-9]; p

Purpose Critically ill patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have high rates of line thrombosis. Our objective was to examine the safety and efficacy of a low dose heparinized saline (LDHS) arterial line (a-line) patency protocol in this population. Materials and Methods In this observational cohort study, patients ≥18 years with COVID-19 admitted to an ICU at one institution from March 20–May 25, 2020 were divided into two cohorts. Pre-LDHS patients had an episode of a-line thrombosis between March 20–April 19. Post-LDHS patients had an episode of a-line thrombosis between April 20–May 25 and received an LDHS solution (10 units/h) through their a-line pressure bag. Results Forty-one patients (pre-LDHS) and 30 patients (post-LDHS) were identified. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, including age (61 versus 54 years; p = 0.24), median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (6 versus 7; p = 0.67) and systemic anticoagulation (47% versus 32%; p = 0.32). Median duration of a-line patency was significantly longer in post-LDHS versus pre-LDHS patients (8.5 versus 2.9 days; p, Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image, Highlights • Critically ill COVID-19 patients have frequent arterial line (a-line) thrombosis. • A low dose heparinized saline (LDHS) a-line patency protocol was examined. • Two a-line thrombosis cohorts were identified: “post-LDHS” and “pre-LDHS”. • A-line patency was longer in post- vs. pre-LDHS patients (8.5 vs. 2.9 d; p

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Background: We sought to describe the epidemiology, presentation, multi-system outcomes, and predictors of mortality of the critically-ill COVID-19 patients