Search

Predicting failure of nonoperative management (NOM) in splenic trauma remains elusive. Shock index (SI) is an indicator of physiologic burden in an injury but is not used as a prediction tool. The purpose of this study was to determine if elevated SI would be predictive of failure of NOM in patients with a blunt splenic injury.Adult patients admitted to a level-1 trauma center from January 2011 to April 2017 for NOM of splenic injury were reviewed. Patients were excluded if they underwent a procedure (angiography or surgery) prior to admission. The primary outcome was requiring intervention after an initial trial of noninterventional management (NIM). An SI 0.9 at admission was considered a high risk. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify predicators of the failure of NOM. Findings were subsequently verified on a validation cohort of patients.Five hundred and eighty-five patients met inclusion criteria; 7.4% failed NIM. On an univariate analysis, findings of pseudoaneurysm or extra-arterial contrast on computed tomography did not differentiate successful NIM versus failure (8.1% versus 14.0%, P = 0.18). Age, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma injury grade, and elevated SI were included in multivariate modeling. Grade of injury (OR 3.49, P = 0.001), age (OR 1.02, P = 0.009), and high SI (OR 3.49, P = 0.001) were each independently significant for NIM failure. The risk-adjusted odds of failure were significantly higher in patients with a high risk SI (OR 2.35, P 0.001). Validation of these findings was confirmed for high SI on a subsequent 406 patients with a c-statistic of 0.71 (95% CI 0.62-0.80).Elevated SI is an independent risk factor for failure of NIM in those with splenic injury. SI along with age and computed tomography findings may aid in predicting the failure of NIM. Trauma providers should incorporate SI into decision-making tools for splenic injury management.

Whole blood (WB) is an attractive product for prehospital treatment of hemorrhagic shock and for initial in-hospital resuscitation of patients likely to require massive transfusion. Neither our regional blood provider nor our hospital blood bank had recent experience collecting or using WB, so we developed a stepwise process to gather experience with WB in clinical practice.When our Transfusion Committee suggested a WB program, we worked with our regional blood provider to collect cold-stored, leukoreduced, low-titer anti-A, and anti-B group O RhD positive WB (low-titer group O WB [LTOWB]) and worked with our city Fire Department to integrate it into prehospital care. This work required planning, development of protocols, writing software for blood bank and electronic medical records, changes in paramedic scope of practice, public information, training of clinicians, and close clinical follow-up.Between June 2019 and December 2021, we received 2269 units of LTOWB and transfused 2220 units; 24 (1%) were wasted, two were withdrawn, and 23 were in stock at the end of that time. Most (89%) were transfused to trauma patients. Usage has grown from 48 to 120 units/month, covers all 5 Fire Districts in the county, and represents about ¼ of all hospital trauma blood product use.Developing a WB program is complex but can be started slowly, including both pre-hospital and hospital elements, and expanded as resources and training progress. The investments of time, effort, and funding involved can potentially improve care, save blood bank and nursing effort, and reduce patient charges.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, firearm violence events, alcohol and drug use problems, and major depression and suicidal ideation are endemic among patients admitted to US trauma centers. Despite increasing policy importance, the current availability of screening and intervention services for this constellation of conditions in US trauma centers is unknown.Trauma program staff at all Level I and Level II trauma centers in the US. (N = 627) were contacted to complete a survey describing screening and intervention procedures for alcohol and drug use problems, PTSD symptoms, depression and suicidality, and firearm violence. Additional questions asked trauma centers about the delivery of peer interventions and information technology capacity for screening and intervention procedures.Fifty-one percent of trauma centers (n = 322) responded to the survey. More than 95% of responding sites endorsed routinely screening and/or intervening for alcohol use problems. Routine services addressing PTSD were less common, with 28% of centers reporting routine screening. More than 50% of sites that screened for PTSD used previously established trauma center alcohol use services. Programmatic screening and intervention for firearm injury sequelae was occurring at 30% of sites.Alcohol screening and intervention is occurring frequently at US trauma centers and appears to be responsive to American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma verification requirements. Routine screening and intervention services for PTSD and firearm injury were occurring less frequently. Regular national surveys may be a key element of tracking progress in national mental health and substance use screening, intervention, and referral policy.

Uncontrolled bleeding is the leading preventable cause of death after injury. Stop the Bleed (STB) is a bleeding control training with proposed expansion into schools. However, the attitudes of guardians, specifically those with past trauma/injury, towards expanding STB into schools are unknown.A cross-sectional survey evaluated guardian attitudes towards STB training in high schools, and compared responses between guardians based on the experience of prior trauma. Logistic regression models evaluated the association between prior trauma and guardian-reported acceptability of STB training.Of 750 guardians who received the survey, 484 (64.5%) responded. Most guardians (95.3%) wanted their child trained. Few (4.2%) felt this training would be harmful; 44.9% felt their child might be held responsible if something went wrong, and 28.4% reported it might be too scary for their child. In adjusted models, guardians with prior trauma were more likely to want their child trained (odds ratio [OR] = 3.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-15.50), and identify STB as important to them (OR = 4.07, 95% CI 1.66-12.26).Our results support STB training in high schools, and guardians with a trauma history may be more likely to want their child trained. Further work to understand the perceived potential harm, and work to design trauma-informed first-response trainings is warranted.

Until recently, survival has been the main outcome measure for injury research. Given the impact of injury on quality of life, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine has called for advancing the science of research evaluating the long-term outcomes of trauma survivors. This is necessary so that treatments and interventions can be assessed for their impact on a trauma patients' long-term functional and psychosocial outcomes. We sought to propose a set of core domains and measurement instruments that are best suited to evaluate long-term outcomes after traumatic injury with a goal for these measures to be adopted as a national standard.As part of the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan, we conducted a two-stage, five-round modified online Delphi consensus process with a diverse panel of 50 key stakeholders including clinicians, researchers, and trauma survivors from more than 9 professional areas across the United States. Before voting, panelists reviewed the results of a scoping review on patient-reported outcomes after injury and standardized information on measurement instruments following the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines.The panel considered a preliminary list of 74 outcome domains (patient-reported outcomes) and ultimately reached the a priori consensus criteria for 29 core domains that encompass aspects of physical, mental, social, and cognitive health. Among these 29 core domains, the panel considered a preliminary list of 199 patient-reported outcome measures and reached the a priori consensus criteria for 14 measures across 13 core domains. Participation of panelists ranged from 65% to 98% across the five Delphi rounds.We developed a core outcome measurement set that will facilitate the synthesis, comparison, and interpretation of long-term trauma outcomes research. These measures should be prioritized in all future studies in which researchers elect to evaluate long-term outcomes of traumatic injury survivors.Diagnostic Test or Criteria, Level IV.

National guidelines for prehospital trauma triage aim to identify seriously injured patients who may benefit from transport to trauma centers. These guidelines have poor sensitivity for serious injury among older adults. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a high-sensitivity triage strategy for older adults.We developed a Markov chain Monte Carlo microsimulation model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of high-sensitivity field triage criteria among older adults compared with current practice. The model used a retrospective cohort of 3621 community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries who were transported by emergency medical services after an acute injury in 7 counties in the northwestern US during January to December 2011. These data informed model estimates of emergency medical services triage assessment, hospital transport patterns, and outcomes from index hospitalization up to 1 year after discharge. Outcomes beyond 1 year were modeled using published literature. Differences in cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated for both strategies using a lifetime analytical horizon. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per QALY gained) to assess cost-effectiveness, which we defined using a threshold of less than $100,000 per QALY.High-sensitivity trauma field triage for older adults would produce a small incremental benefit in average trauma system effectiveness (0.0003 QALY) per patient at a cost of $1,236,295 per QALY. Sensitivity analysis indicates that the cost of initial hospitalization and emergency medical services adherence to triage status (ie transporting triage-positive patients to a trauma center) had the largest influence on overall cost-effectiveness.High-sensitivity trauma field triage is not cost-effective among older adults.

In 2016, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine called for the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan. The Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. Given the public health burden of injuries to the central nervous system, neurotrauma was one of 11 panels formed to address this recommendation with a gap analysis and generation of high-priority research questions.We recruited interdisciplinary experts to identify gaps in the neurotrauma literature, generate research questions, and prioritize those questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. We conducted four Delphi rounds in which participants generated key research questions and then prioritized the importance of the questions on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as 60% or greater of panelists agreeing on the priority category. We then coded research questions using an National Trauma Research Action Plan taxonomy of 118 research concepts, which were consistent across all 11 panels.Twenty-eight neurotrauma experts generated 675 research questions. Of these, 364 (53.9%) reached consensus, and 56 were determined to be high priority (15.4%), 303 were deemed to be medium priority (83.2%), and 5 were low priority (1.4%). The research topics were stratified into three groups-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), mild TBI (mTBI), and spinal cord injury. The number of high-priority questions for each subtopic was 46 for severe TBI (19.7%), 3 for mTBI (4.3%) and 7 for SCI (11.7%).This Delphi gap analysis of neurotrauma research identified 56 high-priority research questions. There are clear areas of focus for severe TBI, mTBI, and spinal cord injury that will help guide investigators in future neurotrauma research. Funding agencies should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research.Diagnostic Test or Criteria, Level IV.

Background Among Hospital Based Violence Intervention programs (HVIPs), little is known about variation in services provided, funding sources, or populations served. Study design Twenty-eight member programs of Health Alliance for Violence Intervention participated in a survey administered by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Questions were quantitative and qualitative. For qualitative analysis, questions pertaining to the domains were assessed for common themes and assessed across all subject domains. Results All programs enroll patients injured by community violence, some by intimate partner violence (IPV), trafficking, and rarely by child or elder abuse. Programs with more funding (≥$300,000 per year) were more likely federally, state, or city funded. Lower funded programs (≤$300,000 per year) were funded by foundations or philanthropy. In both qualitative and quantitative analysis, barriers to starting or sustaining HVIPs included funding, and lack of risk reduction and mental health resources. Successful programs had stable funding, adequate staffing, and buy in from hospitals and staff. Conclusion HVIPs serve diverse populations in variable models. There is opportunity to expand the reach of HVIPs, and the experience if existing programs is an invaluable resource.

On May 4-5, 2022, a meeting of multidisciplinary stakeholders in the prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) after trauma was convened by the Coalition for National Trauma Research (CNTR), funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH/NHLBI), and hosted by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) in Chicago, Illinois. This consensus conference gathered more than 40 in-person and 80 virtual attendees, including trauma surgeons, other physicians, thrombosis experts, nurses, pharmacists, researchers, and patient advocates. The objectives of the meeting were two-fold: 1) to review and summarize the present state of the scientific evidence regarding VTE prevention strategies in injured patients, and 2) to develop consensus on future priorities in VTE prevention implementation and research gaps.To achieve these objectives, the first part of the conference consisted of talks from physician leaders, researchers, clinical champions, and patient advocates to summarize the current state of knowledge of VTE pathogenesis and prevention in patients with major injury. Video recordings of all talks and accompanying slides are freely available on the conference website. (https://www.nattrauma.org/research/research-policies-templates-guidelines/vte-conference/) Following this curriculum, the second part of the conference consisted of a series of small-group breakout sessions on topics potentially requiring future study. Through this process, research priorities were identified and plans of action to develop and undertake future studies were defined.The 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal VTE Prophylaxis in Trauma answered the National Trauma Research Action Plan call to define a course for future research into preventing thromboembolism after trauma. A multidisciplinary group of clinical champions, physicians, scientists, and patients delineated clear objectives for future investigation to address important, persistent key knowledge gaps. The series of papers from the conference outline the consensus based on the current literature and a roadmap for research to answer these unanswered questions.

Importance Emergency research is challenging to do well as it involves time sensitive interventions in unstable patients. There is limited time to obtain informed consent from the patient or their legally authorized representative (LAR). Such research is permitted under exception from informed consent (EFIC) if specific criteria are met, including notification after enrollment. Some question whether the risks of EFIC outweighs its benefits. To date, there is limited empiric information about time to notification (TTN) and rates of withdrawal in such trials. Objective To describe variation in TTN and rates of withdrawal among that patients enrolled in EFIC trials over a twelve-year period. Design We performed post hoc descriptive analyses of data from five trials conducted under EFIC. Setting Emergency medical services and receiving hospitals participating in the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium in the United States and Canada. Participants Patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or life-threatening traumatic injury. Exposures Notification strategies were specified at each site before initiation of enrollment by a local institutional review board. We monitored TTN within each site centrally throughout each study’s enrollment period. Outcomes TTN was defined as time from randomization to first-reported notification of patient or LAR of enrollment. Withdrawal was defined as patient or LAR opt out of ongoing participation at the time of notification. Results Of 35,442 patients enrolled in five trials, 33,805 had cardiac arrest; and 1636 had traumatic injury. TTN varied overall and by patient outcome. Among those with cardiac arrest, TTN ranged from median (5%ile, 95%ile) of 6 (1,27) days to 28 (2, 53) days across sites. 0.3% of notified patients with cardiac arrest withdrew. Among those with traumatic injury, TTN ranged from 0 (0, 5) days to 36 (5, 68) days across sites. 7.7% of notified patients with traumatic injury withdrew. Conclusions and Relevance There is large variation in TTN in trials conducted under EFIC for emergency research. This may be due to several factors. It may or may not be modifiable. Overall rates of withdrawal are low, which suggests current practices related to EFIC are acceptable to those who have participated in emergency research.

The 2016 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine call for a national integrated, military-civilian trauma action plan to achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury included a proposal to establish a National Trauma Research Action Plan to "strengthen trauma research and ensure that the resources available for this research are commensurate with the importance of injury and the potential for improvement in patient outcomes." The Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma/burn care from prehospital to rehabilitation. The Burn/Reconstructive Surgery group represents one focus area for this research agenda development.Experts in burn and reconstructive surgery research identified gaps in knowledge, generated research questions and prioritized questions using a consensus driven Delphi survey approach. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability with military and civilian representatives. Literature reviews informed the panel. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: Patient/Population; Intervention; Compare/Control; Outcome. Participants ranked the priority of each question on a nine-point Likert scale, which was categorized to represent low, medium, and high priority items. Consensus was defined based on ≥60% panelist agreement.Subject matter experts generated 949 research questions in 29 Burn26 Reconstruction topics. Five hundred ninety-seven questions reached consensus. Of these, 338 (57%) were high-priority, 180 (30%), medium-priority, and 78 (13%) low-priority questions.Many high-priority questions translate to complex wound management and outcomes. Panel recognition that significant gaps in knowledge exist in understanding functional outcomes after injury underscores the importance of long-term recovery metrics even when studying acute injury or interventions such as resuscitation or inhalation injury. Funding agencies and burn/reconstructive surgery researchers should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research.Expert consensus, Level IV.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE To describe the current literature regarding long-term physical, mental, and social outcomes of firearm injury survivors in the United States. METHODS We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases for articles published from 2013 to 2019 that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 or older and reported health outcomes between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Out of 747 articles identified, seven reported outcomes on United States-based civilian patients whose mechanism of injury involved firearms. We extended our publication date criteria from 1995 to 2020 and expanded the search strategy to include medical subject headings terms specific for firearm injury outcomes. Ultimately, ten articles met inclusion criteria. RESULTS When studied, a significant proportion of patients surviving firearm injury screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder (49%-60%) or were readmitted (13%-26%) within 6 months postinjury. Most studies reported worse long-term outcomes for firearm injury survivors when compared both to similarly injured motor vehicle collision survivors and to the United States general population, including increased chronic pain, new functional limitations, and reduced physical health composite scores. Studies also reported high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder, reduced mental health composite scores, lower employment and return to work rates, poor social functioning, increased alcohol, and substance abuse. CONCLUSIONS Research on the long-term health impact of firearm injury is scant, and heterogeneity in available studies limits the ability to fully characterize the outcomes among these patients. A better understanding of the long-term health impact of firearm injury would support systematic change in policy and patient care to improve outcomes.

BACKGROUND Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) are an acute surgical condition with high morbidity and mortality. Timely identification, resuscitation, and aggressive surgical management have significantly decreased inpatient mortality. However, reduced inpatient mortality has shifted the burden of disease to long-term mortality associated with persistent organ dysfunction. METHODS We performed a combined analysis of NSTI patients from the AB103 Clinical Composite Endpoint Study in Necrotizing Soft Tissue Infections randomized-controlled interventional trial (ATB-202) and comprehensive administrative database (ATB-204) to determine the association of persistent organ dysfunction on inpatient and long-term outcomes. Persistent organ dysfunction was defined as a modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (mSOFA) score of 2 or greater at Day 14 (D14) after NSTI diagnosis, and resolution of organ dysfunction defined as mSOFA score of 1 or less. RESULTS The analysis included 506 hospitalized NSTI patients requiring surgical debridement, including 247 from ATB-202, and 259 from ATB-204. In both study cohorts, age and comorbidity burden were higher in the D14 mSOFA ≥2 group. Patients with D14 mSOFA score of 1 or less had significantly lower 90-day mortality than those with mSOFA score of 2 or higher in both ATB-202 (2.4% vs. 21.5%; p < 0.001) and ATB-204 (6% vs. 16%: p = 0.008) studies. In addition, in an adjusted covariate analysis of the combined study data sets D14 mSOFA score of 1 or lesss was an independent predictor of lower 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.53; p = 0.001). In both studies, D14 mSOFA score of 1 or less was associated with more favorable discharge status and decreased resource utilization. CONCLUSION For patients with NSTI undergoing surgical management, persistent organ dysfunction at 14 days, strongly predicts higher resource utilization, poor discharge disposition, and higher long-term mortality. Promoting the resolution of acute organ dysfunction after NSTI should be considered as a target for investigational therapies to improve long-term outcomes after NSTI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic/epidemiology study, level III.

BackgroundRespiratory complications are associated with significant morbidity and mortality in trauma patients. The care transition from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the acute care ward is a vulnerable time for injured patients. There is a lack of knowledge about the epidemiology of respiratory events and their outcomes during this transition.MethodsRetrospective cohort study in a single Level I trauma center of injured patients 18 years and older initially admitted to the ICU from 2015 to 2019 who survived initial transfer to the acute care ward. The primary outcome was occurrence of a respiratory event, defined as escalation in oxygen therapy beyond nasal cannula or facemask for three or more consecutive hours. Secondary outcomes included unplanned intubation for a primary pulmonary cause, adjudicated via manual chart review, as well as in-hospital mortality and length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine patient characteristics associated with posttransfer respiratory events.ResultsThere were 6,561 patients that met the inclusion criteria with a mean age of 52.3 years and median Injury Severity Score of 18 (interquartile range, 13-26). Two hundred and sixty-two patients (4.0%) experienced a respiratory event. Respiratory events occurred early after transfer (median, 2 days, interquartile range, 1-5 days), and were associated with high mortality (16% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001), and ICU readmission rates (52.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001). Increasing age, male sex, severe chest injury, and comorbidities, including preexisting alcohol use disorder, congestive heart failure, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, were associated with increased odds of a respiratory event. Fifty-eight patients experienced an unplanned intubation for a primary pulmonary cause, which was associated with an in-hospital mortality of 39.7%.ConclusionRespiratory events after transfer to the acute care ward occur close to the time of transfer and are associated with high mortality. Interventions targeted at this critical time are warranted to improve patient outcomes.Level of evidencePrognostic and Epidemiological study, level III.

BACKGROUND In addition to reflecting gas exchange within the lungs, end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) also reflects cardiac output based on CO2 delivery to the pulmonary parenchyma. We hypothesized that low prehospital ETCO2 values would be predictive of hemorrhagic shock in intubated trauma patients. METHODS A retrospective observational study of adult trauma patients intubated in the prehospital setting and transported to a single Level I trauma center from 2016 to 2019. Continuous prehospital ETCO2 data were linked with patient care registries. We developed a novel analytic approach that allows for reflection of prehospital ETCO2 over the entire prehospital course of care. The primary outcome was hemorrhagic shock on emergency department (ED) presentation, defined as either initial ED systolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or less or initial Shock Index (SI) > 0.9, and transfusion of at least one unit of blood product during their ED stay. Prehospital ETCO2 less than 25 mm Hg was evaluated for predictive value of hemorrhagic shock. RESULTS Three hundred and seven patients (82% men, 34% penetrating injury, 42% in hemorrhagic shock on ED arrival, 27% mortality) were included in the study. Patients in hemorrhagic shock had lower median ETCO2 values (26.5 mm Hg vs. 32.5 mm Hg; p < 0.001) than those not in hemorrhagic shock. Patients with prehospital ETCO2 less than 25 mm Hg were 3.0 times (adjusted odds ratio = 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-7.9) more likely to be in hemorrhagic shock upon ED arrival than patients with ETCO2 ≥ 25 mm Hg. CONCLUSION Intubated patients with hemorrhagic shock upon ED arrival had significantly lower prehospital ETCO2 values. Incorporating ETCO2 assessment into prehospital care for trauma patients could support decisions regarding prehospital blood transfusion, and triage to higher-level trauma centers, and trauma team activation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic, level III.

BACKGROUND Resuscitative endovascular occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is used for temporary aortic occlusion of trauma patients in the management of noncompressible hemorrhage. Previous studies have focused on how to properly perform REBOA in the trauma environment to improve survival rates, but high-grade evidence defining the ideal patient population does not yet exist. This post hoc analysis of the Emergent Truncal Hemorrhage Control Study seeks to identify the most important clinical factors for physicians to consider when selecting for REBOA candidates and their potential survival following REBOA. METHODS Post hoc analysis of a large, multicenter, prospective observational study conducted at six level 1 trauma centers, 2017 to 2018, was performed. An onsite data collector documented all time points for REBOA patients since admission. Candidate predictors were demographics; injury severity; physiology preprocedure, during procedure, and postprocedure; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and REBOA-specific variables (time to procedure, procedure-related time intervals, access site, technique, sheath size, catheter length, balloon volume, deployment zone). Predictive models for survival at three different time points along the trauma triage and REBOA process timeline ("Admission," "REBOA Initiation," and "Postaortic Occlusion") were devised by logistic regression. RESULTS Eighty-eight patients had REBOA placement. The Admission model selected age, Glasgow Coma Scale, and admission systolic blood pressure as significant predictors of survival (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.94). The REBOA Initiation and Postaortic Occlusion models selected age, Glasgow Coma Scale, and the systolic blood pressure measured just before balloon inflation as predictors for survival (AUROC, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.78-0.97] and AUROC, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.81-0.99], respectively). No REBOA procedural variables were identified as predictors of patient survival. CONCLUSION Only patient-specific criteria of age, neurologic status, and severity of shock predicted survival. The hemodynamic stability of the patient at the time REBOA is initiated is more important than how REBOA is initiated. These findings suggest that earlier preparation for REBOA placement may be a key to improved survival. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic, level IV.

BACKGROUND There is substantial investment in layperson and first responder training involving tourniquet use for hemorrhage control. Little is known however about prehospital tourniquet application, field conversion, or outcomes in the civilian setting. We describe the experience of a metropolitan region with prehospital tourniquet application. METHODS We conducted a retrospective cohort study characterizing prehospital tourniquet use treated by emergency medical services (EMS) in King County, Washington, from January 2018 to June 2019. Emergency medical services and hospital records were abstracted for demographics, injury mechanism, tourniquet details, clinical care, and outcomes. We evaluated the incidence of tourniquet application, who applied the device (EMS, law enforcement, or layperson), and subsequent course. RESULTS A total of 168 patients received tourniquet application, an incidence of 5.1 per 100,000 person-years and 3.48 per 1,000 EMS responses for trauma. Tourniquets were applied for penetrating trauma (64%), blunt trauma (30%), and bleeding ateriovenous fistulas (7%). A subset was critically ill: 13% had systolic blood pressures of

In the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2016 report on trauma care, the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research was recommended. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high-priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on long-term outcomes.Experts in long-term outcomes were recruited to identify current gaps in long-term trauma outcomes research, generate research questions, and establish the priority for these questions using a consensus-driven, Delphi survey approach from February 2021 to August 2021. Panelists were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability including both military and civilian representation. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: Patient/Population, Intervention, Compare/Control, and Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, panelists were asked to prioritize each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category.Thirty-two subject matter experts generated 482 questions in 17 long-term outcome topic areas. By Round 3 of the Delphi, 359 questions (75%) reached consensus, of which 107 (30%) were determined to be high priority, 252 (70%) medium priority, and 0 (0%) low priority. Substance abuse and pain was the topic area with the highest number of questions. Health services (not including mental health or rehabilitation) (64%), mental health (46%), and geriatric population (43%) were the topic areas with the highest proportion of high-priority questions.This Delphi gap analysis of long-term trauma outcomes research identified 107 high-priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future long-term outcomes research.Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV.

The 2016 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine report included a proposal to establish a National Trauma Research Action Plan. In response, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care from prehospital care to rehabilitation as part of an overall strategy to achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury. The Postadmission Critical Care Research panel was 1 of 11 panels constituted to develop this research agenda.We recruited interdisciplinary experts in surgical critical care and recruited them to identify current gaps in clinical critical care research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. The first of four survey rounds asked participants to generate key research questions. On subsequent rounds, we asked survey participants to rank the priority of each research question on a 9-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category.Twenty-five subject matter experts generated 595 questions. By Round 3, 249 questions reached ≥60% consensus. Of these, 22 questions were high, 185 were medium, and 42 were low priority. The clinical states of hypovolemic shock and delirium were most represented in the high-priority questions. Traumatic brain injury was the only specific injury pattern with a high-priority question.The National Trauma Research Action Plan critical care research panel identified 22 high-priority research questions, which, if answered, would reduce preventable death and disability after injury.Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level IV.

The associate membership of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) was established in 2019 to create a defined but incorporated entity within the larger AAST for the next generation of acute care surgeons. The Associate Member Council (AMC) was subsequently established in 2020 to provide the new AM with an elected group of leaders who would represent them within the AAST. In its inaugural year, this cohort of junior faculty and surgical trainees had developed for the AM a set of bylaws, a mission statement, a strategic vision, and a succession plan. The experience of the AAST AMC is exemplary of what can be accomplished with collaboration, mentorship, innovation, and tenacity. It has the potential to serve as a template for the creation and vitalization of future professional groups. In this piece, the AMC proposes a blueprint for the successful conception of a new organization.

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.

Supplemental digital content is available in the text., BACKGROUND The aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarize patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that are being used to track long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after injury and can potentially be included in trauma registries. METHODS Online databases were used to identify studies published between 2013 and 2019, from which we selected 747 articles that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 years or older at time of injury and used PROMs to evaluate recovery between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. RESULTS Most studies were observational, with relatively small sample sizes, and predominantly on traumatic brain injury or orthopedic patients. The number of PROs assessed per study varied from one to 12, for a total of 2052 PROs extracted, yielding 74 unique constructs (physical health, 25 [34%]; mental health, 27 [37%]; social health, 12 [16%]; cognitive health, 7 [10%]; and quality of life, 3 [4%]). These 74 constructs were assessed using 355 different PROMs. Mental health was the most frequently examined outcome domain followed by physical health. Health-related quality of life, which appeared in more than half of the studies (n = 401), was the most common PRO evaluated, followed by depressive symptoms. Physical health was the domain with the highest number of PROMs used (n = 157), and lower-extremity functionality was the PRO that contributed most PROMs (n = 33). CONCLUSION We identified a wide variety of PROMs available to track long-term PROs after injury in five different health domains: physical, mental, social, cognitive, and quality of life. However, efforts to fully understand the health outcomes of trauma patients remain inconsistent and insufficient. Defining PROs that should be prioritized and standardizing the PROMs to measure them will facilitate the incorporation of long-term outcomes in national registries to improve research and quality of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic Reviews & Meta-analyses, Level IV

The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) that is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has led to an overwhelming strain on healthcare delivery. This pandemic has created a sustained stress on the modern healthcare system, with unforeseen and potential drastic effects. Although the initial focus during this pandemic has been preparedness and response directed to the pandemic itself, traumatic injury has continued to remain a common problem that requires immediate evaluation and care to provide optimal outcomes. The State of Washington had the first reported case and death related to COVID-19 in the United States. Harborview Medical Center, which serves as the sole Level-1 adult and pediatric trauma center for the state, was rapidly affected by COVID-19, but still needed to maintain preparedness and responses to injured patients for the region. Although initially the focus was on the emerging pandemic on institutional factors, it became obvious that sustained efforts for regional trauma care required a more global focus. Because of these factors, Harborview Medical Center was quickly entrusted to serve as the coordinating center for the regions COVID-19 response, while also continuing to provide optimal care for injured patients during the pandemic. This response allowed the care of injured patients to be maintained within designated trauma centers during this pandemic. This present report summarizes the evolution of trauma care delivery during the first phase of this pandemic and provides informative recommendations for sustained responses to the care of injured patients during the pandemic based on lessons learned during the initial response.

Introduction Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is an emerging invasive rescue therapy for treatment of refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA). We aim to describe the incidence of traumatic and hemorrhagic complications among patients undergoing ECPR for OHCA and examine the association between CPR duration and ECPR-related injuries or bleeding. Methods We examined prospectively collected data from the Extracorporeal Resuscitation Outcomes Database (EROD), which includes ECPR-treated OHCAs from participating hospitals (October 2014 to August 2019). The primary outcome was traumatic or hemorrhagic complications, defined any of the following: pneumothorax, pulmonary hemorrhage, major bleeding, cannula site bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, thoracotomy, cardiac tamponade, aortic dissection, or vascular injury during hospitalization. The primary exposure was the cardiac arrest to ECPR initiation interval (CA-ECPR interval), measured as the time from arrest to initiation of ECPR. Descriptive statistics were used to compare demographic, cardiac arrest, and ECPR characteristics among patients with and without CPR-related traumatic or bleeding complications. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between CA-ECPR interval and traumatic or bleeding complications. Results A total of 68 patients from 4 hospitals receiving ECPR for OHCA were entered into EROD and met inclusion criteria. Median age was 51 (interquartile range 38–58), 81% were male, 40% had body mass index > 30, and 70% had pre-existing medical comorbidities. A total of 65% had an initial shockable cardiac rhythm, mechanical CPR was utilized in at least 29% of patients, and 27% were discharged alive. The median time from arrest to ECPR initiation was 73 min (IQR 60–104). A total of 37% experienced a traumatic or bleeding complication, with major bleeding (32%), vascular injury (18%), and cannula site bleeding (15%) being the most common. Compared to patients with shorter CPR times, patients with a longer CA-ECPR interval had 18% (95% confidence interval — 2–42%) higher odds of suffering a mechanical or bleeding complication, but this did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.08). Conclusions Traumatic injuries and bleeding complications are common among patients undergoing ECPR. Further study is needed to investigate the relation between arrest duration and complications. Clinicians performing ECPR should anticipate and assess for injuries and bleeding in this high-risk population.

In its 2016 report on trauma care, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine called for the establishment of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to strengthen and guide future trauma research. To address this recommendation, the Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. We describe the gap analysis and high priority research questions generated from the National Trauma Research Action Plan panel on injury prevention.Experts in injury prevention research were recruited to identify current gaps in injury prevention research, generate research questions and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach from December 2019 through September 2020. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability with both military and civilian representatives. Participants were encouraged, but not required, to use a Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome format to generate research questions: Patient/Population; Intervention; Compare/Control; Outcome model. On subsequent surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a nine-point Likert scale, categorized to represent low-, medium-, and high-priority items. Consensus was defined as 60% or greater of panelists agreeing on the priority category.Twenty-eight subject matter experts generated 394 questions in 12 topic areas. By round 3 of the Delphi, 367 (93.1%) questions reached consensus, of which 169 (46.1%) were determined to be high priority, 196 (53.4%) medium priority, and 2 (0.5%) low priority. Among the 169 high priority questions, suicide (29.6%), firearm violence (20.1%), and violence prevention (18.3%) were the most prevalent topic areas.This Delphi gap analysis of injury prevention research identified 169 high priority research questions that will help guide investigators in future injury prevention research. Funding agencies and researchers should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research.Therepeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Injury is the leading cause of death in patients aged 1 to 45 years and contributes to a significant public health burden for individuals of all ages. To achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine called for the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to improve outcomes for military and civilian trauma patients. Because rapid resuscitation and prompt identification and treatment of injuries are critical in achieving optimal outcomes, a panel of experts was convened to generate high-priority research questions in the areas of acute resuscitation, initial evaluation, imaging, and definitive management on injury.Forty-three subject matter experts in trauma care and injury research were recruited to perform a gap analysis of current literature and prioritize unanswered research questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Four Delphi rounds were conducted to generate research questions and prioritize them using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions were stratified as low, medium, or high priority, with consensus defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. Research questions were coded using a taxonomy of 118 research concepts that were standard across all National Trauma Research Action Plan panels.There were 1,422 questions generated, of which 992 (69.8%) reached consensus. Of the questions reaching consensus, 327 (33.0%) were given high priority, 621 (62.6%) medium priority, and 44 (4.4%) low priority. Pharmaceutical intervention and fluid/blood product resuscitation were most frequently scored as high-priority intervention concepts. Research questions related to traumatic brain injury, vascular injury, pelvic fracture, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis were highly prioritized.This research gap analysis identified more than 300 high-priority research questions within the broad category of Acute Resuscitation, Initial Evaluation, Imaging, and Definitive Management. Research funding should be prioritized to address these high-priority topics in the future.

In 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine trauma report recommended a National Trauma Research Action Plan to "strengthen trauma research and ensure that the resources available for this research are commensurate with the importance of injury and the potential for improvement in patient outcomes." With a contract from the Department of Defense, the Coalition for National Trauma Research created 11 expert panels to address this recommendation, with the goal of developing a comprehensive research agenda, spanning the continuum of trauma and burn care. This report outlines the work of the group focused on pediatric trauma.Experts in pediatric trauma clinical care and research were recruited to identify gaps in current clinical pediatric trauma research, generate research questions, and establish the priority of these questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Using successive surveys, participants were asked to rank the priority of each research question on a 9-point Likert scale categorized to represent priority. Consensus was defined as60% agreement within the priority category. Priority questions were coded based on a dictionary of 118 National Trauma Research Action Plan taxonomy concepts in 9 categories to support comparative analysis across all panels.Thirty-seven subject matter experts generated 625 questions. A total of 493 questions (79%) reached consensus on priority level. Of those reaching consensus, 159 (32%) were high, 325 (66%) were medium, and 9 (2%) were low priority. The highest priority research questions related to surgical interventions for traumatic brain injury (intracranial pressure monitoring and craniotomy); the second highest priority was hemorrhagic shock. The prehospital setting was the highest priority phase of care.This diverse panel of experts determined that most significant pediatric trauma research gaps were in traumatic brain injury, hemorrhagic shock, and the prehospital phase of care. These research domains should be top priorities for funding agencies.Therapeutic / Care Management; Level IV.

Current trauma registries suffer from inconsistent collection of data needed to assess health equity. To identify barriers/facilitators to collecting accurate equity-related data elements, we assessed perspectives of national stakeholders, Emergency Department (ED) registration, and Trauma Registry staff. We conducted a Delphi process with experts in trauma care systems and key informant interviews and focus groups with ED patient registration and trauma registry staff at a regional Level I trauma center. Topics included data collection process, barriers/facilitators for equity-related data collection, electronic health record (EHR) entry, trauma registry abstraction, and strategies to overcome technology limitations. Responses were qualitatively analyzed and triangulated with observations of ED and trauma registry staff workflow. Expert-identified barriers to consistent data collection included lack of staff investment in changes and lack of national standardization of data elements; facilitators were simplicity, quality improvement checks, and stakeholder investment in modifying existing technology to collect equity elements. ED staff reported experiences with patients reacting suspiciously to queries regarding race and ethnicity. Cultural resonance training, a script to explain equity data collection, and allowing patients to self-report sensitive items using technology were identified as potential facilitators. Trauma registry staff reported lack of discrete fields, and a preference for auto-populated and designated EHR fields. Identified barriers and facilitators of collection and abstraction of equity-related data elements from multiple stakeholders provides a framework for improving data collection. Successful implementation will require standardized definitions, staff training, use of existing technology for patient self-report, and discrete fields for added elements.

Objective To address the clinical and regulatory challenges of optimal primary endpoints for bleeding patients by developing consensus-based recommendations for primary clinical outcomes for pivotal trials in patients within 6 categories of significant bleeding, (1) traumatic injury, (2) intracranial hemorrhage, (3) cardiac surgery, (4) gastrointestinal hemorrhage, (5) inherited bleeding disorders, and (6) hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia. Background A standardized primary outcome in clinical trials evaluating hemostatic products and strategies for the treatment of clinically significant bleeding will facilitate the conduct, interpretation, and translation into clinical practice of hemostasis research and support alignment among funders, investigators, clinicians, and regulators. Methods An international panel of experts was convened by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute and the United States Department of Defense on September 23 and 24, 2019. For patients suffering hemorrhagic shock, the 26 trauma working-group members met for almost a year, utilizing biweekly phone conferences and then an in-person meeting, evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of previous high quality studies. The selection of the recommended primary outcome was guided by goals of patient-centeredness, expected or demonstrated sensitivity to beneficial treatment effects, biologic plausibility, clinical and logistical feasibility, and broad applicability. Conclusions For patients suffering hemorrhagic shock, and especially from truncal hemorrhage, the recommended primary outcome was 3 to 6-hour all-cause mortality, chosen to coincide with the physiology of hemorrhagic death and to avoid bias from competing risks. Particular attention was recommended to injury and treatment time, as well as robust assessments of multiple safety related outcomes.

Background A fundamental goal of continuous process improvement programs is to evaluate and improve the ratio of actual to expected mortality. To study this, we examined contributors to error-associated deaths during two consecutive periods from 1996 to 2004 (period 1) and 2005 to 2014 (period 2). Methods All deaths at a level I trauma center with an anticipated probability of death less than 50% and/or identified through process improvement committees were examined. Demographics were assessed for trend only because period 1 data were only available in median and interquartile range. Each death was critically appraised to identify potential error, with subsequent classification of error type, phase, cause, and contributing cognitive processes, with comparison of outcomes made using χ test of independence. Results During period 1, there were a total of 44,401 admissions with 2,594 deaths and 64 deaths (2.5%) associated with an error, compared with 60,881 admissions during period 2 with 2,659 deaths and 77 (2.9%) associated with an error. Deaths associated with an error occurred in younger and less severely injured patients in period 1 and were likely to occur during the early phase of care, primarily from failed resuscitation and hemorrhage control. In period 2, deaths occurred in older more severely injured patients and were likely to occur in the later phase of care primarily because of respiratory failure from aspiration. Conclusion Despite injured patients being older and more severely injured, error-associated deaths during the early phase of care that was associated with hemorrhage improved over time. Successful implementation of system improvements resolved issues in the early phase of care but shifted deaths to later events during the recovery phase including respiratory failure from aspiration. This study demonstrates that ongoing evaluation is essential for continuous process improvement and realignment of efforts, even in a mature trauma system. Level of evidence Therapeutic/Care Management, level IV.

Objective To describe the current use of the ER-REBOA catheter and associated outcomes and complications. Introduction Noncompressible truncal hemorrhage is the leading cause of potentially preventable death in trauma patients. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a novel strategy to obtain earlier temporary hemorrhage control, supporting cardiac, and cerebral perfusion before definitive hemostasis. Methods Prospective, observational study conducted at 6 Level 1 Trauma Centers over 12-months. Inclusion criteria were age >15 years of age with evidence of truncal hemorrhage below the diaphragm and decision for emergent hemorrhage control intervention within 60 minutes of arrival. REBOA details, demographics, mechanism of injury, complications, and outcomes were collected. Results A total of 8166 patients were screened for enrollment. In 75, REBOA was utilized for temporary hemorrhage control. Blunt injury occurred in 80% with a median injury severity score (ISS) 34 (21, 43). Forty-seven REBOAs were placed in Zone 1 and 28 in Zone 3. REBOA inflation increased systolic blood pressure from 67 (40, 83) mm Hg to 108 (90, 128) mm Hg 5 minutes after inflation (P = 0.02). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was ongoing during REBOA insertion in 17 patients (26.6%) and 10 patients (58.8%) had return of spontaneous circulation after REBOA inflation. The procedural complication rate was 6.6%. Overall mortality was 52%. Conclusion REBOA can be used in blunt and penetrating trauma patients, including those in arrest. Balloon inflation uniformly improved hemodynamics and was associated with a 59% rate of return of spontaneous circulation for patients in arrest. Use of the ER-REBOA catheter is technically safe with a low procedural complication rate.

Background Necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTI) represent a heterogeneous group of rapidly progressive skin and soft tissue infections associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Efforts to identify factors associated with death have produced mixed results, and little or no data is available for other adverse outcomes. We sought to determine whether admission variables were associated with mortality, limb loss, and discharge disposition in patients with NSTI. Methods We analyzed prospectively collected data of adult patients with surgically confirmed NSTI from an NSTI registry maintained at a quaternary referral center. Factors independently associated with mortality, amputation, and skilled nursing facility discharge were identified using logistic regression. Results Between 2015 and 2018, 446 patients were identified. The median age was 55 years (interquartile range, 43-62). The majority of patients were male (65%), white (77%), and transferred from another facility (90%). The perineum was most commonly involved (37%), followed by the lower extremity (34%). The median number of operative debridements was 3 (interquartile range, 2-4). Overall mortality was 15%, and 21% of extremity NSTI patients required amputation. Age greater than 60 years; creatinine greater than 2 mg/dL; white blood cell count greater than 30 x 10^ /μl, platelets less than 150 × 10/μL, and clostridial involvement were independently associated with greater odds of death; perineal involvement was associated with lower odds of death. Age greater than 60 years; sex, male; nonwhite race; diabetes; chronic wound as etiology; leg involvement; transfer status; and sodium, less than 130 mEq/L were independently associated with amputation. Age greater than 60 years; sex, female; nonwhite race; perineal involvement; and amputation were associated with skilled care facility discharge. Conclusion Necrotizing soft tissue infections are a heterogeneous group of infections involving significantly different patient populations with different outcomes; efforts to differentiate and predict adverse outcomes in NSTI should include laboratory data, comorbidities, infection site, and/or etiology to improve predictions and better account for this heterogeneity. Level of evidence Prognostic, Level III.