Search

Thirty-four per cent of deaths among Americans aged 1–46 are due to injury, and many of these deaths could be prevented if all hospitals performed as well as the highest-performing hospitals. The Institute of Medicine and the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine have called for learning health systems, with emphasis on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) as a means of limiting preventable deaths. Reduction in mortality has been demonstrated when evidence-based trauma CPGs are adhered to; however, guidelines are variably updated, redundant, absent, inaccessible, or perceived as irrelevant. Ultimately, these barriers result in poor guideline implementation and preventable patient deaths. This multidisciplinary group of injury providers, clinical guidance developers and end users, public health and health policy experts and implementation scientists propose key areas for consideration in the definition of an ideal future state for clinical guidance development and dissemination. Suggestions include (1): professional societies collaborate rather than compete for guideline development.(2) Design primary clinical research for implementation, and where relevant, with guideline development in mind.(3) Select clinical topics for guideline development through systematic prioritization, with an emphasis on patient-centered outcomes.(4) Develop guideline authorship groups with a focus on transparency, equity of opportunity and diversity of representation.(5) Establish a plan for regular review and updating and provide the date the guideline was last updated for transparency.(6) Integrate options for adapting the guideline to local resources and needs at the time of development.(7) Make guidelines available on a platform that allows for open feedback and utilization tracking.(8) Improve discoverability of guidelines.(9) Optimize user-experience with a focus on inclusion of bedside-ready, mobile-friendly infographics, tables or algorithms when feasible.(10) Use open access and open licenses.(11) Disseminate clinical guidance via comprehensive and equitable communication channels. Guidelines are key to improve patient outcomes. The proposed focus to ensure trauma guidelines are equitably and effectively developed and disseminated globally.

Background In June 2021, the Injury Research Engagement Project (I-REP) was established. In 2022, we preformed focus group analysis with patients/caregiver and researchers that resulted in themes in preferences, motivations, and best practices to increase participation in trauma research. The importance of trust and well-established relationships was common across all groups. In this study, we aimed to further evaluate preferences regarding research procedures and outcomes, and develop a panel for sustained patient engagement.Methods We performed a multiphase, mixed methods study to elicit trauma stakeholders’ perspectives regarding aspects of research. Previously published phase 1 involved focus group analysis. Phase 2 vignette-based surveys and phase 3 panel formation are described here. One survey was completed by patients/caregivers, and the second by trauma researchers. We compared the responses using independent t-tests. This was followed by a webinar and development of an I-REP panel of patients/caregivers.Results 60 patients/caregivers and 114 researchers participated in the online surveys, with completion rates of 68% and 69%, respectively. The majority of patients/caregivers were >45 years, female (66.7%), and >3 years out from their or their family member’s injury (68.6%). The majority of the researchers were >35 years and male (56.2%). Participants were asked to gauge their perceptions of different research scenarios. The analysis identified themes emerging across groups. Several survey findings differed from phase 1, including motivations to participate (payment) and consent preferences (timing, approach). Racial and ethnic demographics of the participants were not collected.Conclusions Engaging trauma stakeholders results in research more relevant to patients’ needs and priorities. Qualitative engagement methods that intentionally include a more diverse population and determining the appropriate format for specific questions may lead to results that are be more generalizable. The educational webinar was well received, and several participants opted to serve as I-REP panelists to collaborate with trauma researchers moving forward.Level of evidence IV.

Introduction Engaging trauma survivors/caregivers results in research findings that are more relevant to patients’ needs and priorities. Although their perspectives increase research significance, there is a lack of understanding about how best to incorporate their insights. We aimed to capture stakeholder perspectives to ensure research is meaningful, respectful, and relevant to the injured patient and their caregivers.Methods A multiphase, inductive exploratory qualitative study was performed, the first phase of which is described here. Virtual focus groups to elicit stakeholder perspectives and preferences were conducted across 19 trauma centers in the USA during 2022. Discussion topics were chosen to identify patients’ motivation to join research studies, preferences regarding consent, suggestions for increasing diversity and access, and feelings regarding outcomes, efficacy, and exception from informed consent. The focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed to identify the range of perspectives expressed and any common themes that emerged.Results Ten 90-minute focus groups included patients/caregiver (n=21/1) and researchers (n=14). Data analysis identified common themes emerging across groups. The importance of trust and preexisting relationships with the clinical care team were the most common themes across all groups.Conclusion Our findings reveal common themes in preferences, motivations, and best practices to increase patient/caregiver participation in trauma research. The project’s next phases are distribution of a vignette-based survey to establish broad stakeholder consensus; education and dissemination activities to share strategies that increase research engagement and relevance for patients; and the formation of a panel of patients to support future research endeavors.Level of evidence Level IV.

Background A recent clinical trial suggested aspirin is a viable alternative to enoxaparin for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients after orthopedic trauma. The initial impact of these findings on VTE prophylaxis prescribing is unknown. The study aimed to evaluate stated VTE prophylaxis prescribing patterns among clinicians who treat patients after orthopedic trauma.Methods For this clinical vignette survey, we recruited surgeons and advanced practice providers who prescribed VTE prophylaxis to patients with orthopedic trauma across 40 states. Clinicians were shown seven clinical vignettes describing hypothetical patients with orthopedic trauma based on their fracture type, treatment, VTE risk factors, additional injuries and health insurance status. We assessed the stated VTE prophylaxis medications prescribed in-hospital and at discharge, patient factors associated with changes in medication prescribing preferences and practice variation by specialty and provider training.Results Among the 287 respondents, the median age was 43 years (IQR, 38–50), and 154 (weighted average, 63%) were men. For in-hospital VTE prophylaxis, enoxaparin was prescribed in 83% of the presented scenarios, and aspirin was prescribed in 13% (p

Introduction Poor communication about serious injury in older adults can lead to treatment that is inconsistent with patient preferences, create conflict and strain healthcare resources. We developed a communication intervention called Best Case/Worst Case-intensive care unit (ICU) that uses daily scenario planning, that is, a narrative description of plausible futures, to support prognostication and facilitate dialogue among patients, their families and the trauma ICU team. This article describes a protocol for a multisite, randomised, stepped-wedge study to test the effectiveness of the intervention on the quality of communication (QOC) in the ICU.Methods and analysis We will follow all patients aged 50 and older admitted to the trauma ICU for 3 or more days after a serious injury at eight high-volume level 1 trauma centres. We aim to survey one family or ‘like family’ member per eligible patient 5–7 days following their loved ones’ admission and clinicians providing care in the trauma ICU. Using a stepped-wedge design, we will use permuted block randomisation to assign the timing for each site to begin implementation of the intervention and routine use of the Best Case/Worst Case-ICU tool. We will use a linear mixed-effects model to test the effect of the tool on family-reported QOC (using the QOC scale) as compared with usual care. Secondary outcomes include the effect of the tool on reducing clinician moral distress (using the Measure of Moral Distress for Healthcare Professionals scale) and patients’ length of stay in the ICU.Ethics and dissemination Institutional review board (IRB) approval was granted at the University of Wisconsin, and all study sites ceded review to the primary IRB. We plan to report results in peer-reviewed publications and national meetings.Trial registration number NCT05780918.

The evaluation and workup of fever and the use of antibiotics to treat infections is part of daily practice in the surgical intensive care unit (ICU). Fever can be infectious or non-infectious; it is important to distinguish between the two entities wherever possible. The evidence is growing for shortening the duration of antibiotic treatment of common infections. The purpose of this clinical consensus document, created by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee, is to synthesize the available evidence, and to provide practical recommendations. We discuss the evaluation of fever, the indications to obtain cultures including urine, blood, and respiratory specimens for diagnosis of infections, the use of procalcitonin, and the decision to initiate empiric antibiotics. We then describe the treatment of common infections, specifically ventilator-associated pneumonia, catheter-associated urinary infection, catheter-related bloodstream infection, bacteremia, surgical site infection, intra-abdominal infection, ventriculitis, and necrotizing soft tissue infection.

The use of prophylactic measures, including perioperative antibiotics, for the prevention of surgical site infections is a standard of care across surgical specialties. Unfortunately, the routine guidelines used for routine procedures do not always account for many of the factors encountered with urgent/emergent operations and critically ill or high-risk patients. This clinical consensus document created by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee is one of a three-part series and reviews surgical and procedural antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical intensive care unit. The purpose of this clinical consensus document is to provide practical recommendations, based on expert opinion, to assist intensive care providers with decision-making for surgical prophylaxis. We specifically evaluate the current state of periprocedural antibiotic management of external ventricular drains, orthopedic operations (closed and open fractures, silver dressings, local, antimicrobial adjuncts, spine surgery, subfascial drains), abdominal operations (bowel injury and open abdomen), and bedside procedures (thoracostomy tube, gastrostomy tube, tracheostomy).

Clinical research has evolved significantly over the last few decades to include many advanced and alternative study designs to answer unique questions. Recognizing a potential knowledge gap, the AAST Associate Member Council and Educational Development Committee created a research course at the 2022 Annual Meeting in Chicago to introduce junior researchers to these methodologies. This manuscript presents a summary of this AAST Annual Meeting session, and reviews topics including hierarchical modeling, geospatial analysis, patient-centered outcomes research, mixed methods designs, and negotiating complex issues in multicenter trials.

Objectives Our understanding of blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) has changed significantly in recent decades, resulting in a heterogeneous description of diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in the literature which is not suitable for data pooling. Therefore, we endeavored to develop a core outcome set (COS) to help guide future BCVI research and overcome the challenge of heterogeneous outcomes reporting.Methods After a review of landmark BCVI publications, content experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi study. For round 1, participants submitted a list of proposed core outcomes. In subsequent rounds, panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to score the proposed outcomes for importance. Core outcomes consensus was defined as >70% of scores receiving 7 to 9 and

Maximizing long-term outcomes for patients following injury is the next challenge in the delivery of patient-centered trauma care. The following review outlines three important components in trauma outcomes: (1) data gathering and monitoring, (2) the impact of traumatic brain injury, and (3) trajectories in recovery and identifies knowledge gaps and areas for needed future research.

The complexity of the care environment, the emergent nature, and the severity of patient injury make conducting clinical trauma research challenging. These challenges hamper the ability to investigate potentially life-saving research that aims to deliver pharmacotherapeutics, test medical devices, and develop technologies that may improve patient survival and recovery. Regulations intended to protect research subjects impede scientific advancements needed to treat the critically ill and injured and balancing these regulatory priorities is challenging in the acute setting. This scoping review attempted to systematically identify what regulations are challenging in conducting trauma and emergency research. A systematic search of PubMed was performed to identify studies published between 2007 and 2020, from which 289 articles that address regulatory challenges in conducting research in emergency settings were included. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Most articles identified were editorial/commentary (31%) and published in the USA (49%). Regulatory factors addressed in the papers were categorized under 15 regulatory challenge areas: informed consent (78%), research ethics (65%), institutional review board (55%), human subjects protection (54%), enrollment (53%), exception from informed consent (51%), legally authorized representative (50%), patient safety (41%), community consultation (40%), waiver of informed consent (40%), recruitment challenges (39%), patient perception (30%), liability (15%), participant incentives (13%), and common rule (11%). We identified several regulatory barriers to conducting trauma and emergency research. This summary will support the development of best practices for investigators and funding agencies.

Objectives Damage control laparotomy (DCL) remains an important tool in the trauma surgeon’s armamentarium. Inconsistency in reporting standards have hindered careful scrutiny of DCL outcomes. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for DCL clinical studies to facilitate future pooling of data via meta-analysis and Bayesian statistics while minimizing reporting bias.Methods A modified Delphi study was performed using DCL content experts identified through Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) ‘landmark’ DCL papers and EAST ad hoc COS task force consensus.Results Of 28 content experts identified, 20 (71%) participated in round 1, 20/20 (100%) in round 2, and 19/20 (95%) in round 3. Round 1 identified 36 potential COS. Round 2 achieved consensus on 10 core outcomes: mortality, 30-day mortality, fascial closure, days to fascial closure, abdominal complications, major complications requiring reoperation or unplanned re-exploration following closure, gastrointestinal anastomotic leak, secondary intra-abdominal sepsis (including anastomotic leak), enterocutaneous fistula, and 12-month functional outcome. Despite feedback provided between rounds, round 3 achieved no further consensus.Conclusions Through an electronic survey-based consensus method, content experts agreed on a core outcome set for damage control laparotomy, which is recommended for future trials in DCL clinical research. Further work is necessary to delineate specific tools and methods for measuring specific outcomes.Level of evidence V, criteria

Background Older patients compose approximately 30% of trauma patients treated in the USA but make up nearly 50% of deaths from trauma. To help standardize and elevate care of these patients, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Trauma Quality Improvement Program’s best practice guidelines for geriatric trauma management was published in 2013 and that for palliative care was published in 2017. Here, we discuss how palliative care and geriatrics quality metrics can be tracked and used for performance improvement and leveraged as a strength for trauma verification.Methods We discuss the viewpoint of the ACS Verification, Review, and Consultation and three case studies, with practical tips and takeaways, of how these measures have been implemented at different institutions.Results We describe the use of (1) targeted educational initiatives, (2) development of a consultation tool based on institutional resources, and (3) application of a nurse-led frailty screen.Discussion Specialized care and attention to these vulnerable populations is recommended, but the implementation of these programs can take many shapes.Level of evidence V

Background Traumatic lower extremity venous injuries are most commonly managed with either a vein ligation or repair procedure. Venous injuries are associated with an increased risk of developing venous thromboembolisms (VTE), but little is understood with regard to how specific surgical treatments may impact the risk of developing either a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or a pulmonary embolism (PE). In this study of lower extremity venous injuries, we hypothesized that venous ligation would be associated with an increased risk of DVT but a lower risk of PE when compared with venous repair.Methods Patients were identified from the National Trauma Data Bank (2008 to 2014) with at least one iliac, femoral, popliteal, or tibial venous injury and who received either a vein ligation or repair. The patients were then compared based on the type of procedure and the location of the injury to assess the risk of DVT and PE between the groups.Results A total of 1214 patients were identified. There was no difference between patients who received a vein ligation versus a repair with respect to age, injury severity score, or initial systolic blood pressure. There was no difference in the odds of developing either a DVT or PE between patients who were treated with vein ligation versus repair. There was also no difference in VTE rates when stratified by the location of the injury.Conclusions In individuals with lower extremity venous injuries, there is no difference in the rate of DVT or PE complications when comparing venous repair and ligation procedures. The role of anticoagulation remains to be elucidated following operative treatment.Level of evidence Therapeutic/Care Management, Level IV.

Background The 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.Methods We 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.Results Our 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

Background Extremity CT angiography (CTA) is frequently used to assess for vascular injury among patients with extremity trauma. The injured extremity index (IEI), defined as the ratio of systolic occlusion pressure between injured and uninjured extremities, has been implemented to screen patients being considered for CTA. Physical examination together with IEI is extremely sensitive for significant extremity vascular injury. Unfortunately, IEI cannot always be calculated. This study aimed to determine whether patients with normal pulse examinations and no hard signs of vascular injury benefitted from further imaging with CTA. We hypothesized that CTA has become overused among patients with extremity trauma, as determined by the outcome of vascular abnormalities that underwent vascular intervention but were missed by physical examination.Methods The charts of traumatically injured patients who underwent extremity CTA were retrospectively reviewed. This study was performed at a level 1 trauma center for patients who presented as trauma activations from September 1, 2019 to September 1, 2020.Results One hundred and thirty-six patients with 167 injured limbs were included. Eight limbs (4.8%) underwent an open vascular operation, whereas five limbs (3.0%) underwent an endovascular procedure. One of the 167 limbs (0.6%) had a vascular injury seen on CTA and underwent intervention that was not associated with a pulse abnormality or hard signs of vascular injury. This patient presented in a delayed fashion after an initially normal IEI and examination. Proximity injuries and fractures alone were not highly associated with vascular injuries.Discussion Many patients with normal pulse examination and no hard signs of vascular injury underwent CTA; the vast majority of these patients did not then have a vascular intervention. Given the consequences of missed vascular injuries, further work is required to prospectively assess the utility of CTA among patients with extremity trauma.Level of evidence III.

Background There has been a proliferation of urban high-level trauma centers. The aim of this study was to describe the density of high-level adult trauma centers in the 15 largest cities in the USA and determine whether density was correlated with urban social determinants of health and violence rates.Methods The largest 15 US cities by population were identified. The American College of Surgeons’ (ACS) and states’ department of health websites were cross-referenced for designated high-level (levels 1 and 2) trauma centers in each city. Trauma centers and associated 20 min drive radius were mapped. High-level trauma centers per square mile and per population were calculated. The distance between high-level trauma centers was calculated. Publicly reported social determinants of health and violence data were tested for correlation with trauma center density.Results Among the 15 largest cities, 14 cities had multiple high-level adult trauma centers. There was a median of one high-level trauma center per every 150 square kilometers with a range of one center per every 39 square kilometers in Philadelphia to one center per596 square kilometers in San Antonio. There was a median of one high-level trauma center per 285 034 people with a range of one center per 175 058 people in Columbus to one center per 870 044 people in San Francisco. The median minimum distance between high-level trauma centers in the 14 cities with multiple centers was 8 kilometers and ranged from 1 kilometer in Houston to 43 kilometers in San Antonio. Social determinants of health, specifically poverty rate and unemployment rate, were highly correlated with violence rates. However, there was no correlation between trauma center density and social determinants of health or violence rates.Discussion High-level trauma centers density is not correlated with social determinants of health or violence rates.Level of evidence VI.Study type Economic/decision.

Anticoagulant-associated traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICrH) is a devastating injury with high morbidity and mortality. For survivors, treating clinicians face the dilemma of restarting oral anticoagulation with scarce evidence to guide them. Thromboembolic risk is high from the bleeding event, patients’ high baseline risks, that is, the pre-existing indication for anticoagulation, and the risk of immobility after the bleeding episode. This must be balanced with potentially devastating hematoma expansion or new hemorrhagic lesions. Retrospective evidence and expert opinion support restarting oral anticoagulants in most patients with tICrH, but timing is uncertain. Researchers have failed to make clear distinctions between tICrH and spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (sICrH), which have differing natural histories. While both appear to benefit from restarting, sICrH has a higher rebleeding risk and similar or lower thrombotic risk. Clinical equipoise on restarting is also divergent. In sICrH, equipoise is centered on whether to restart. In tICrH, it is centered on when. Several prospective randomized clinical trials are ongoing or about to start to examine the risk–benefit of restarting. Most of them are restricted to patients with sICrH, with antiplatelet control groups. Most are also restricted to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), as they are associated with a lower overall risk of ICrH. There is some overlap with tICrH via subdural hematoma, and one trial is specific to restart timing with DOACs in only traumatic cases. This is a narrative review of the current evidence for restarting anticoagulation and restart timing after tICrH along with a summary of the ongoing and planned clinical trials.

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.

BackgroundEmerging evidence suggests aspirin may be an effective venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for orthopaedic trauma patients, with fewer bleeding complications. We used a patient-centered weighted composite outcome to globally evaluate aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for VTE prevention in fracture patients.MethodsWe conducted an open-label randomized clinical trial of adult patients admitted to an academic trauma center with an operative extremity fracture, or a pelvis or acetabular fracture. Patients were randomized to receive LMWH (enoxaparin 30-mg) twice daily (n = 164) or aspirin 81-mg twice daily (n = 165). The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of bleeding complications, deep surgical site infection, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and death within 90 days of injury. A Global Rank test and weighted time to event analysis were used to determine the probability of treatment superiority for LMWH, given a 9% patient preference margin for oral administration over skin injections.ResultsOverall, 18 different combinations of outcomes were experienced by patients in the study. Ninety-nine patients in the aspirin group (59.9%) and 98 patients in the LMWH group (59.4%) were event-free within 90 days of injury. Using a Global Rank test, the LMWH had a 50.4% (95% CI, 47.7-53.2%, p = 0.73) probability of treatment superiority over aspirin. In the time to event analysis, LMWH had a 60.5% probability of treatment superiority over aspirin with considerable uncertainty (95% CI, 24.3-88.0%, p = 0.59).ConclusionThe findings of the Global Rank test suggest no evidence of superiority between LMWH or aspirin for VTE prevention in fracture patients. LMWH demonstrated a 60.5% VTE prevention benefit in the weighted time to event analysis. However, this difference did not reach statistical significance and was similar to the elicited patient preferences for aspirin.

Background Although many patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are admitted to trauma intensive care units (ICUs), some question whether outcomes would improve if their care was provided in neurocritical care units. We sought to compare characteristics and outcomes of patients with TBI admitted to and cared for in a trauma versus neuroscience ICU.Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study of adult (≥18 years of age) blunt trauma patients with TBI admitted to a trauma versus neuroscience ICU between May 2015 and December 2016. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate an adjusted odds ratio (OR) comparing 30-day mortality between cohorts.Results In total, 548 patients were included in the study, including 207 (38%) who were admitted to the trauma ICU and 341 (62%) to the neuroscience ICU. When compared with neuroscience ICU admissions, patients admitted to the trauma ICU were more likely to have sustained their injuries from a high-speed mechanism (71% vs. 34%) and had a higher Injury Severity Score (ISS) (median 25 vs. 16) despite a similar head Abbreviated Injury Scale score (3 vs. 3, p=0.47) (all p

Background: Patients who receive resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) for temporization ofexsanguinating hemorrhage may have occult injuries sustained to the iliac arteries or aorta which may pose increased risks in performing REBOA. Caution is essential in performing REBOA in these patients as the injuries are not clearly defined on admission. REBOA is currently performed in select centers without fluoroscopy, leading to blind placement of devices and an essential reliance on tactile feedback. Methods: Patients admitted between February 2013 and July 2017 at a tertiary center who had a successful or unsuccessful blind placement of a REBOA catheter or wire through a damaged iliac artery or aorta were included. Results: Three patients were identified. Two patients had successful placement of the REBOA catheter; one sustained injury to the external iliac artery and the other sustained injury to the abdominal aorta. Confirmation of catheter placement was obtained before balloon inflation, and the damaged vessels were identified upon immediate operative intervention. One patient had unsuccessful placement of the REBOA catheter during cardiac arrest despite accurate access of the common femoral artery (CFA). Conclusions: Emergent, blind placement of wires and catheters past arterial injuries is possible but may result in procedural abandonment and/or arterial injury. Physical exam and/or tactile feedback should alert the surgeon to the possibility of arterial injury. Imaging confirmation should precede balloon inflation if at all possible.

Pericardio-diaphragmatic hernias (PDHs) are exceedingly rare. When found in adults, they are most commonly caused by blunt trauma and require immediate repair. We report a case of a 61-year-old female who presented with shortness of breath, chest pain and fatigue one month after a motor vehicle collision. Imaging revealed an anterior diaphragmatic rupture with herniation of transverse colon and omentum into the left hemithorax with mass effect on the anterior heart. She underwent exploratory laparotomy revealing a pericardio-diaphragmatic hernia with contents further herniating through a lateral pericardial defect into the left chest. The pericardio-diaphragmatic defect was repaired primarily with non-absorbable sutures. There is an average of only one case report of PDH annually and to our knowledge, this is the first report of pericardio-diaphragmatic hernia with concomitant lateral pericardial defect with herniation of contents into the chest. Keywords: Blunt injury, Diaphragmatic hernia, Pericardio-diaphragmatic hernia, Diaphragmatic rupture