Search

Abstract Background Limited research has explored the effect of Circle of Willis (CoW) anatomy among blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVI) on outcomes. It remains unclear if current BCVI screening and scanning practices are sufficient in identification of concomitant COW anomalies and how they affect outcomes. Methods This retrospective cohort study included adult traumatic BCVIs at 17 level I-IV trauma centers (08/01/2017-07/31/2021). The objectives were to compare screening criteria, scanning practices, and outcomes among those with and without COW anomalies. Results Of 561 BCVIs, 65% were male and the median age was 48 y/o. 17% (n = 93) had a CoW anomaly. Compared to those with normal CoW anatomy, those with CoW anomalies had significantly higher rates of any strokes (10% vs. 4%, p = 0.04), ICHs (38% vs. 21%, p = 0.001), and clinically significant bleed (CSB) before antithrombotic initiation (14% vs. 3%, p

Background Stress ulcers in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI) present significant morbidity and mortality risks. Despite the low reported stress ulcer rates, stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is widely administered in neurocritical care. It was hypothesized that universal SUP administration may not be associated with reduced rates of complications across all neurocritical care patients.Methods This retrospective study encompassed neurocritical care patients aged ≥18 with moderate or severe TBI or SCI, admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between October 2020 and September 2021, across six level I trauma centers. Exclusions included patients with an ICU stay

Objective The perioperative management of patients on antiplatelet drugs is a rising challenge in orthopedic trauma because antiplatelet drugs are frequently encountered and carry an increased risk of hemorrhagic consequences. The study objective was to examine the effect of aspirin on bleeding outcomes for patients with lower extremity fractures.Methods This retrospective study included patients requiring surgical fixation of traumatic hip, femur, and tibia fractures from January 1, 2018, to March 1, 2020. Patients were excluded if they had a significant head injury, were on chronic anticoagulant therapy, or they did not receive venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis. Comparisons between aspirin users (patients on aspirin therapy preinjury) and non-aspirin users were examined using χ2 tests, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests, and multivariate logistic regression. The primary outcome was an overt, actionable bleed (eg, blood transfusion for surgical site hemorrhage) within 24 hours postoperative.Results There were 864 patients with lower extremity long bone fractures and 24% were aspirin users. The incidence of postoperative bleeding was 8.8% and significantly differed for patients taking aspirin versus not (13.6% vs 7.3%, p=0.01). However, biological sex at birth (M/F) was a significant effect modifier (interaction p=0.04). Among women, there were significantly more postoperative bleeds for aspirin users (17.8% aspirin vs 7.4% no aspirin, adjusted OR (AOR): 2.48 (1.28–4.81), p=0.01). Among men, there were similar postoperative bleeding events by aspirin use (5.6% aspirin vs 7.2% no aspirin, AOR: 0.50 (0.14–1.82), p=0.30). Postoperative hemoglobin values

Abstract Background American College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers. Methods A 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020–1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources. Results The survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%). Conclusions Survey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.

Abstract Background Since the national stay-at-home order for COVID-19 was implemented, clinicians and public health authorities worldwide have expressed growing concern about the potential repercussions of drug and alcohol use due to social restrictions. We explored the impact of the national stay-at-home orders on alcohol or drug use and screenings among trauma admissions. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study at six Level I trauma centers across four states. Patients admitted during the period after the onset of the COVID-19 restrictions (defined as March 16, 2020-May 31, 2020) were compared with those admitted during the same time period in 2019. We compared 1) rate of urine drug screens and blood alcohol screens; 2) rate of positivity for drugs or alcohol (blood alcohol concentration ≥ 10 mg/dL); 3) characteristics of patients who were positive for drug or alcohol, by period using chi-squared tests or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. Two-tailed tests with an alpha of p

Abstract Introduction There is a lack of data on the use and effectiveness of pre-hospital pelvic circumferential compression devices (PCCD) as a temporary intervention for pelvic fracture management; they are thought to decrease pelvic volume and hemorrhage but are not without risks. The purpose of this study is to examine pre-hospital PCCD practices at US Level I trauma centers. Methods This was a prospective cross-sectional survey of trauma medical directors at US Level I trauma centers. The aim of this study was to describe patterns of pre-hospital PCCD utilization for pelvic fractures. Responses were compared by region, length in time the center was designated Level I, trauma patient volume, pelvic management guideline followed and blood product guidelines. Data were compared using Fisher’s exact and chi-squared tests. Results Of the 158 Level I trauma centers invited, 25% responded. All Level I trauma centers use in-hospital PCCDs, whereas 71% of participant’s paramedic agencies trained on pre-hospital PCCD application. Of those, 44% trained to apply pre-hospital PCCDs to all suspected pelvic fractures. A higher proportion of high-volume centers (77%) than low-volume centers (25%) trained on pre-hospital PCCD placement, p = 0.06. PCCD practices were not dependent on the trauma center’s region, trauma volume, length in time as a Level I trauma center, or pelvic fracture guideline followed. Conclusions There is widespread application of in-hospital and pre-hospital PCCD at US Level I trauma centers, however pre-hospital PCCDs are not applied to all suspected pelvic fractures. Future studies should focus on efficacy, safety, and contraindications for pre-hospital PCCDs.

Abstract Background Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is not widely adopted for pelvic fracture management. Western Trauma Association recommends REBOA for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures, whereas Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma and Advanced Trauma Life Support do not. Method Utilizing a prospective cross-sectional survey, all 158 trauma medical directors at American College of Surgeons-verified Level I trauma centers were emailed survey invitations. The study aimed to determine the rate of REBOA use, REBOA indicators, and the treatment sequence of REBOA for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. Results Of those invited, 25% (40/158) participated and 90% (36/40) completed the survey. Nearly half of trauma centers [42% (15/36)] use REBOA for pelvic fracture management. All participants included hemodynamic instability as an indicator for REBOA placement in pelvic fractures. In addition to hemodynamic instability, 29% (4/14) stated REBOA is used for patients who are ineligible for angioembolization, 14% (2/14) use REBOA when interventional radiology is unavailable, 7% (1/14) use REBOA for patients with a negative FAST. Fifty percent (7/14) responded that hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures exclusively indicates REBOA placement. Hemodynamic instability for pelvic fractures was most commonly defined as systolic blood pressure of

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has had major effects on hospitals’ ability to perform scientific research while providing patient care and minimizing virus exposure and spread. Many non-COVID-19 research has been halted, and funding has been diverted to COVID-19 research and away from other areas.Methods A 28-question survey was administered to all level 1 trauma centers in the USA that included questions about how the pandemic affected the trauma centers’ ability to fulfill the volume and research requirements of level 1 verification by the American College of Surgeons (ACS).Results The survey had a 29% response rate (40/137 successful invitations). Over half of respondents (52%) reported reduced trauma admissions during the pandemic, and 7% reported that their admissions dropped below the volume required for level 1 verification. Many centers diverted resources from research during the pandemic (44%), halted ongoing consenting studies (33%), and had difficulty fulfilling research requirements because of competing clinical priorities (40%).Discussion Results of this study show a need for flexibility in the ACS verification process during the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially including reduction of the required admissions and/or research publication volumes.Level of evidence Level IV, cross-sectional study.

Abstract Background Patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures have high mortality due to delayed hemorrhage control. We hypothesized that the availability of interventional radiology (IR) for angioembolization may vary in spite of the mandated coverage at US Level I trauma centers, and that the priority treatment sequence would depend on IR availability. Methods This survey was designed to investigate IR availability and pelvic fracture management practices. Six email invitations were sent to 158 trauma medical directors at Level I trauma centers. Participants were allowed to skip questions and irrelevant questions were skipped; therefore, not all questions were answered by all participants. The primary outcome was the priority treatment sequence for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. Predictor variables were arrival times for IR when working off-site and intervention preparation times. Kruskal-Wallis and ordinal logistic regression were used; alpha = 0.05. Results Forty of the 158 trauma medical directors responded to the survey (response rate: 25.3%). Roughly half of participants had 24-h on-site IR coverage, 24% (4/17) of participants reported an arrival time ≥ 31 min when IR was on-call. 46% (17/37) of participants reported an IR procedure setup time of 31–120 min. Arrival time when IR was working off-site, and intervention preparation time did not significantly affect the sequence priority of angioembolization for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. Conclusions Trauma medical directors should review literature and guidelines on time to angioembolization, their arrival times for IR, and their procedural setup times for angioembolization to ensure utilization of angioembolization in an optimal sequence for patient survival.

Abstract Background Mortality from hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures remains high. Guidelines offer varying care approaches including the use of pelvic packing (PP), which was recently adopted for potential control of bleeding for this condition. However, the implementation of PP is uncertain as the debate on the optimal resuscitation strategy, angioembolization or PP continues. The study was designed to assess current practices among level 1 trauma centers in the US in regard to PP treatment for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. Methods A cross-sectional survey was created to assess when to apply PP, application approach, and the respondent’s anecdotal perception on safety and effectiveness. Trauma Medical Directors at 158 US level 1 trauma centers were sent biweekly email invitations for 3 months. Participants were allowed to skip questions for any reason. The study hypothesis was that PP practices vary by US census bureau region, annual trauma admissions, and length of time in years since each trauma center received their respective level 1 trauma center designation. Results Twenty-five percent (40/158) of trauma medical directors participated and 75% (118/158) of the trauma medical directors did not participate. Of those who took the survey, 36/40 (90%) completed the survey and 4/40 (10%) partially completed the survey. Only 36 trauma medical directors responded on their perception of safety and effectiveness; 72% (26/36) of participants perceived PP as safe, whereas only a third (12/36) of participants perceived PP as effective. There were 25 trauma medical directors who provided the sequence of treatment modalities utilized at their level 1 trauma center, 76% (19/25) of participants reported that PP is utilized as the third or fourth priority. None of the participating level 1 trauma centers reported a preference towards utilization of PP as the first priority treatment. Half of the participants reported a preference towards applying PP only as a last resort to control hemorrhage. Northeastern and Western level 1 trauma centers were significantly more likely than Midwestern and Southern level 1 trauma centers to have reported application of PP to all hemodynamically unstable patients (p = 0.05). Midwestern, Southern, and Western level 1 trauma centers were significantly more likely to have perceived PP as safe than Northeastern level 1 trauma centers (p = 0.04). All low-volume and 38% high-volume level 1 trauma centers perceived PP to increase infection risks, (p = 0.03). We observed no association between the length of time each trauma center was designated a level 1 trauma center, and all participant responses. Conclusion Controversy and varying anecdotal perception regarding safety and effectiveness of PP prevails among trauma medical directors at level 1 trauma centers in the US.