Search

BACKGROUND: The impact of disparities at the intersection of multiple marginalized social identities is poorly understood in trauma. We sought to evaluate the joint effect of race, ethnicity, and sex on new functional limitations 6 to 12 months postinjury. STUDY DESIGN: Moderately to severely injured patients admitted to one of three Level I trauma centers were asked to complete a phone-based survey assessing functional outcomes 6 to 12 months postinjury. Multivariate adjusted regression analyses were used to compare functional limitations by race and ethnicity alone, sex alone, and the interaction between both race and ethnicity and sex. The joint disparity and its composition were calculated across race and sex strata. RESULTS: Included were 4,020 patients: 1,621 (40.3%) non-Hispanic White male patients, 1,566 (39%) non-Hispanic White female patients, 570 (14.2%) Black or Hispanic/Latinx male patients, and 263 (6.5%) Black or Hispanic/Latinx female patients (BHF). The risk-adjusted incidence of functional limitations was highest among BHF (50.6%) vs non-Hispanic White female patients (39.2%), non-Hispanic White male patients (35.8%), and Black or Hispanic male patients (34.6%; p < 0.001). In adjusted analysis, women (odds ratio 1.35 [95% CI 1.16 to 1.57]; p < 0.001) and Blacks or Hispanic patients (odds ratio 1.28 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.58]; p = 0.02) were more likely to have new functional limitations 6 to 12 months postinjury. When sex and race were analyzed together, BHF were more likely to have new functional limitations compared with non-Hispanic White male patients (odds ratio 2.12 [1.55 to 2.90]; p < 0.001), with 63.5% of this joint disparity being explained by the intersection of race and ethnicity and sex. CONCLUSION: More than half of the race and sex disparity in functional limitations experienced by BHF is explained by the unique experience of being both minority and a woman. Intermediate modifiable factors contributing to this intersectional disparity must be identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this study was to better understand the variability that exists in the contemporary pediatric cervical spine (c-spine) clearance protocols and how this variability affects clinical practice and outcomes. Background Data: Pediatric c-spine injury is a rare but potentially devastating event. In the adult population, validated tools, such as the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule, are available to aid in safely clearing the c-spine clinically while reducing the utilization of radiography. In the pediatric population, no standardized, validated tool exists, leading to variability in protocols that are put to use. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Cochrane, Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, and Web of Science electronic databases from January 1, 2009 until April 30, 2021. Data were extracted from studies that met inclusion criteria. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. Results: There were 19 studies included in this systematic review. From these 19 studies, there were 16 unique protocols, 12 of which (75%) utilized some or all NEXUS criteria. Of the protocols that provided a detailed imaging algorithm (N=14), 12 (85.7%) utilized x-rays as the initial imaging modality. Indications for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging varied widely across the protocols. The rate of x-rays, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging utilization ranged from 16.7% to 97.8%, 5.4% to 100%, and 0% to 100%, respectively. Ten studies evaluated the efficacy of protocol implementation, with 9 (90%) of these studies showing an overall reduction of imaging rates in the postprotocol period. No clinically significant missed injuries were reported in the included studies. Conclusions: Details of c-spine clearance protocols differed significantly across the included studies, but many applied some or all NEXUS criteria. Overall, while variable, protocols served to safely treat pediatric patients without missing any clinically significant c-spine injuries, while reducing radiation exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systolic blood pressure (SBP) is a potential indicator that could guide when to use a resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in trauma patients with life-threatening injuries. This study aims to determine the optimal SBP threshold for REBOA placement by analyzing the association between SBP pre-REBOA and 24-hour mortality in severely injured hemodynamically unstable trauma patients., Methods: We performed a pooled analysis of the aortic balloon occlusion (ABO) trauma and AORTA registries. These databases record the details related to the use of REBOA and include data from 14 countries worldwide. We included patients who had suffered penetrating and/or blunt trauma. Patients who arrived at the hospital with a SBP pre-REBOA of 0 mm Hg and remained at 0 mm Hg after balloon inflation were excluded. We evaluated the impact that SBP pre-REBOA had on the probability of death in the first 24 hours., Results: A total of 1,107 patients underwent endovascular aortic occlusion, of these, 848 met inclusion criteria. The median age was 44 years (interquartile range [IQR], 27-59 years) and 643 (76%) were male. The median injury severity score was 34 (IQR, 25-45). The median SBP pre-REBOA was 65 mm Hg (IQR, 49-88 mm Hg). Mortality at 24 hours was reported in 279 (32%) patients. Math modeling shows that predicted probabilities of the primary outcome increased steadily in SBP pre-REBOA below 100 mm Hg. Multivariable mixed-effects analysis shows that when SBP pre-REBOA was lower than 60 mm Hg, the risk of death was more than 50% (relative risk, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.92; p = 0.001)., Discussion: In patients who do not respond to initial resuscitation, the use of REBOA in SBPs between 60 mm Hg and 80 mm Hg may be a useful tool in resuscitation efforts before further decompensation or complete cardiovascular collapse. The findings from our study are clinically important as a first step in identifying candidates for REBOA., Level of Evidence: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV., (Copyright © 2023 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Background: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) could provide a survival benefit to severely injured patients as it may improve their initial ability to survive the hemorrhagic shock. Although the evidence supporting the use of REBOA is not conclusive, its use has expanded worldwide. We aim to compare the management approaches and clinical outcomes of trauma patients treated with REBOA according to the countries' income based on the World Bank Country and Lending Groups., Methods: We used data from the AORTA (USA) and the ABOTrauma (multinational) registries. Patients were stratified into two groups: (1) high-income countries (HICs) and (2) low-to-middle income countries (LMICs). Propensity score matching extracted 1:1 matched pairs of subjects who were from an LMIC or a HIC based on age, gender, the presence of pupillary response on admission, impeding hypotension (SBP ≤ 80), trauma mechanism, ISS, the necessity of CPR on arrival, the location of REBOA insertion (emergency room or operating room) and the amount of PRBCs transfused in the first 24 h. Logistic regression (LR) was used to examine the association of LMICs and mortality., Results: A total of 817 trauma patients from 14 countries were included. Blind percutaneous approach and surgical cutdown were the preferred means of femoral cannulation in HICs and LIMCs, respectively. Patients from LMICs had a significantly higher occurrence of MODS and respiratory failure. LR showed no differences in mortality for LMICs when compared to HICs; neither in the non-matched cohort (OR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.36‑1.09; p = 0.1) nor in the matched cohort (OR = 1.45; 95% CI: 0.63‑3,33; p = 0.3)., Conclusion: There is considerable variation in the management practices of REBOA and the outcomes associated with this intervention between HICs and LMICs. Although we found significant differences in multiorgan and respiratory failure rates, there were no differences in the risk-adjusted odds of mortality between the groups analyzed. Trauma surgeons practicing REBOA around the world should joint efforts to standardize the practice of this endovascular technology worldwide.