Search

Background Psychological distress is common following a traumatic injury event. The Injured Trauma Survivor Screen (ITSS) was developed at a level 1 trauma center to assess for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive episode (MDE) following admission for a traumatic injury. The ITSS sensitivity and specificity were analyzed 1 to 3 and 6 to 9 months postinjury to test the validity across trauma centers. Method Four level 1 trauma centers from the East, Midwest, South, and West in the United States recruited 375 eligible adult inpatients (excluded participants included those with moderate or severe traumatic brain injury, whose injury was self-inflicted, were noncommunicative, or were non-English speaking). Baseline sample (White/Caucasian, 63.2%; male, 62.4%; mean (SD) age, 45 (17.11) years; injured by motor vehicle collision, 42.4%) measurements were conducted during index hospitalization. At first follow-up, 69.6% (n = 261) were retained; at second follow-up, 61.3% (n = 230) were retained. Measurements included the ITSS, PTSD Checklist for DSM-5, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Revised, and Clinician-Administered PTSD Scaled for DSM 5. Results At follow-up 1, the ITSS PTSD subscale had a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 78.8%, and the MDE subscale had a sensitivity of 80.4% and specificity of 65.6%. At follow-up 2, the PTSD subscale had a sensitivity of 72.7% and specificity of 83.1%, and the MDE subscale had a sensitivity of 76.1% and specificity of 68.3%. A combined risk group using two symptom based measures administered at baseline produced increased specificity. Conclusion The nine-item ITSS continues to be an efficient and effective risk screen for PTSD and MDE following traumatic injury requiring hospitalization. This multi-institutional validation study creates a solid foundation for further exploration of the generalizability of this screen's psychometric properties in distinct populations. Level of evidence Prognostic study, level III.

BACKGROUND "Best Case/Worst Case" (BC/WC) is a communication tool to support shared decision making in older adults with surgical illness. We aimed to adapt and test BC/WC for use with critically ill older adult trauma patients. METHODS We conducted focus groups with 48 trauma clinicians in Wisconsin, Texas, and Oregon. We used qualitative content analysis to characterize feedback and adapted the tool to fit this setting. Using rapid sequence iterative design, we developed an implementation tool kit. We pilot tested this intervention at two trauma centers using a pre-post study design with older trauma patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Main outcome measures included study feasibility, intervention acceptability, quality of communication, and clinician moral distress. RESULTS BC/WC for trauma patients uses a graphic aid to document major events over time, illustrate plausible scenarios, and convey uncertainty. We enrolled 86 of 116 eligible patients and their surrogates (48 pre/38 postintervention). The median patient age was 72 years (51-95 years) and mean Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score was 126.1 (±30.6). We trained 43 trauma attendings and trauma fellows to use the intervention. Ninety-four percent could perform essential tool elements after training. The median end-of-life communication score (scale 0-10) improved from 4.5 to 6.6 (p = 0.006) after intervention as reported by family and from 4.1 to 6.0 (p = 0.03) as reported by nurses. Moral distress did not change. However, there was improvement (less distress) reported by physicians regarding "witnessing providers giving false hope" from 7.34 to 5.03 (p = 0.022). Surgeons reported the tool put multiple clinicians on the same page and was useful for families, but tedious to incorporate into rounds. CONCLUSION BC/WC trauma ICU is acceptable to clinicians and may support improved communication in the ICU. Future efficacy testing is threatened by enrollment challenges for severely injured older adults and their family members. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, level III.

Antiplatelet (AP) medication use is common among trauma patients and is associated with poor outcomes. Management options for platelet dysfunction in trauma patients are controversial, expensive, and potentially harmful. Although light transmission platelet aggregometry is considered the standard test to assess platelet function, it is cumbersome and not generally available. Currently, there are no widely accepted platelet function point-of-care tests for acute trauma.Prospective observational study from 2014 to 2015. Baseline Multiplate aggregometry aspirin area under the platelet aggregation curve (ASPI AUC), Thrombelastography Platelet Mapping percent inhibition of arachidonic acid (TEG-PM AA), and VerifyNow Aspirin Test (ARU) were compared for ability to detect any AP medication use (aspirin or clopidogrel), platelet dysfunction, and identify patients at risk for intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) progression by calculating the area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values. Adenosine diphosphate assays were similarly evaluated.Sixty-four patients were enrolled, 25 were taking AP medications. AP patients were older (71.6 versus 35.0 y, P 0.001) and received more platelet transfusions, but other baseline characteristics were similar. Median ASPI AUC (22.0 versus 53.5 P 0.001) and VerifyNow ARU (503.5 versus 629.0, P 0.001) were lower, whereas TEG-PM AA (51.8% versus 18.3%, P 0.001) was higher in AP patients. Multiplate ASPI AUC, TEG-PM AA percent inhibition, and VerifyNow ARU could identify AP medication use (AUC: 0.90, 0.77, and 0.90, respectively). Adenosine diphosphate assays did not correlate with AP medication use in this population. TEG-PM AA percent inhibition and VerifyNow ARU correlated well with Multiplate ASPI AUC to identify platelet dysfunction (AUC: 0.78, 0.89, respectively). ICH occurred in 29 patients; 12 of which had progression of their injury. ASPI AUC (AUC: 0.50) and VerifyNow ARU (AUC: 0.59) did not correlate, and TEG-PM AA percent inhibition (AUC: 0.66) minimally correlated with progression.Multiplate, TEG-PM, and VerifyNow are useful point-of-care tests which identify AP medication use and platelet dysfunction in trauma patients. Initial TEG-PM AA percent inhibition may be associated with risk for ICH progression. However, additional large, prospective studies are needed.

Recent military studies demonstrated an association between prehospital tourniquet use and increased survival. The benefits of this prehospital intervention in a civilian population remain unclear. The aims of our study were to evaluate tourniquet use in the civilian population and to compare outcomes to previously published military experience. We hypothesized that incorporation of tourniquet use in the civilian population will result in an overall improvement in mortality.This is a preliminary multi-institutional retrospective analysis of prehospital tourniquet (MIA-T) use of patients admitted to nine urban Level 1 trauma centers from January 2010 to December 2013. Patient demographics and mortality from a previous military experience by Kragh et al. (Ann Surg. 2009;249:1-7) were used for comparison. Patients younger than 18 years or with nontraumatic bleeding requiring tourniquet application were excluded. Data were analyzed using a two-tailed unpaired Student's t test with p0.05 as significant.A total of 197 patients were included. Tourniquets were applied effectively in 175 (88.8%) of 197 patients. The average Injury Severity Score (ISS) for MIA-T versus military was 11 ± 12.5 versus 14 ± 10.5, respectively (p = 0.02). The overall mortality and limb amputation rates for the MIA-T group were significantly lower than previously seen in the military population at 6 (3.0%) of 197 versus 22 (11.3%) of 194 (p = 0.002) and 37 (18.8%) of 197 versus 97 (41.8%) of 232 (p = 0.0001), respectively.Our study is the largest evaluation of prehospital tourniquet use in a civilian population to date. We found that tourniquets were applied safely and effectively in the civilian population. Adaptation of this prehospital intervention may convey a survival benefit in the civilian population.Epidemiologic study, level V.

To determine the safety and efficacy of cryopreserved packed red blood cell (CPRBC) transfusion in trauma patients.Liquid packed red blood cells (LPRBCs) have an abbreviated shelf-life and worsening storage lesion with age. CPRBCs are frozen 2 to 6 days after donation, stored up to 10 years, and are available for 14 days after thawing and washing. CPRBCs can be utilized in diverse settings, but the effect on clinical outcomes is unknown.We performed a prospective, randomized, double-blind study at 5 level 1 trauma centers. Stable trauma patients requiring transfusion were randomized to young LPRBCs (≤14 storage days), old LPRBCs (14 storage days), or CPRBCs. Tissue oxygenation (StO2), biochemical and inflammatory mediators were measured, and clinical outcomes were determined.Two hundred fifty-six patients with well-matched injury severity and demographics (P0.2) were randomized (84 young, 86 old, and 86 CPRBCs). Pretransfusion and final hematocrits were similar (P0.68). Patients in all groups received the same number of units postrandomization (2 [1-4]; P0.05). There was no difference in the change in tissue oxygenation between groups. CPRBCs contained less α2-macrogobulin, haptoglobin, C-reactive protein, and serum amyloid P (P0.001). Organ failure, infection rate, and mortality did not differ between groups (P0.2).Transfusion of CPRBCs is as safe and effective as transfusion of young and old LPRBCs and provides a mechanism to deliver PRBCs in a wide variety of settings.