Search

ObjectiveTo compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days.Summary background dataThe Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes.MethodsWe focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing >10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations.ResultsThe pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret.ConclusionsOverall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

BackgroundElderly (65 and older) fall-related injuries are a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Although frailty predicts poor outcomes in geriatric trauma, literature comparing frailty scoring systems remains limited. Herein, we evaluated which frailty scoring system best predicts falls over time in the elderly.Materials and methodsAcute surgical patients 65 y and older were enrolled and prospectively observed. Demographics and frailty, assessed using the FRAIL Scale, Trauma Specific Frailty Index (TSFI), and Canadian Frailty Scale (CSHA-CFS), were collected at enrollment and 3 mo intervals following discharge for 1 y. Surveys queried the total number and timing of falls. Changes in frailty over time were assessed by logistic regression and area under the curve (AUC).ResultsFifty-eight patients were enrolled. FRAIL Scale and CSHA-CFS scores did not change over time, but TSFI scores did (P ≤ 0.01). Worsening frailty was observed using TSFI at 6 (P ≤ 0.01) and 12 mo (P ≤ 0.01) relative to baseline. Mortality did not differ based on frailty using any frailty score. Increasing frailty scores and time postdischarge was associated with increased odds of a fall. AUC estimates with 95% CI were 0.72 [0.64, 0.80], 0.81 [0.74, 0.88], and 0.76 [0.68, 0.84] for the FRAIL Scale, TSFI, and CSHA-CFS, respectively.ConclusionsThe risk of falls postdischarge were associated with increased age, time postdischarge, and frailty in our population. No scale appeared to significantly outperform the other by AUC estimation. Further study on the longitudinal effects of frailty is warranted.

Introduction: National studies of largely urban populations showed increased risk of traumatic death among uninsured patients, as compared to those insured. No similar studies have been done for major trauma centers serving rural states. Methods: We performed retrospective analyses using trauma registry records from adult, non-burn patients admitted to a single American College of Surgeons-certified Level 1 trauma center in a rural state (2003-2010, n=13,680) and National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) registry records (2002-2008, n=380,182). Risk of traumatic death was estimated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: We found that 9% of trauma center patients and 27% of NTDB patients were uninsured. Overall mortality was similar for both (~4.5%). After controlling for covariates, uninsured trauma center patients were almost five times more likely to die and uninsured NTDB patients were 75% more likely to die than commercially insured patients. The risk of death among Medicaid patients was not significantly different from the commercially insured for either dataset. Conclusion: Our results suggest that even with an inclusive statewide trauma system and an emergency department that does not triage by payer status, uninsured patients presenting to the trauma center were at increased risk of traumatic death relative to patients with commercial insurance.

Background: A consistent approach to cervical spine injury (CSI) clearance for patients 65 and older remains a challenge. Clinical clearance algorithms like the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilisation Study (NEXUS) criteria have variable accuracy and the Canadian C-spine rule excludes older patients. Routine CT of the cervical spine is performed to rule out CSI but at an increased cost and low yield. Herein, we aimed to identify predictive clinical variables to selectively screen older patients for CSI.Methods: The University of Iowa's trauma registry was interrogated to retrospectively identify all patients 65 years and older who presented with trauma from a ground-level fall from January 2012 to July 2017. The relationship between predictive variables (demographics, NEXUS criteria and distracting injuries) and presence of CSI was examined using the generalised linear modelling (GLM) framework. A training set was used to build the statistical models to identify clinical variables that can be used to predict CSI and a validation set was used to assess the reliability and consistency of the model coefficients estimated from the training set.Results: Overall, 2312 patients ≥65 admitted for ground-level falls were identified; 253 (10.9%) patients had a CSI. Using the GLM framework, the best predictive model for CSI included midline tenderness, focal neurological deficit and signs of trauma to the head/face, with midline tenderness highly predictive of CSI (OR=22.961 (15.178-34.737); p<0.001). The negative predictive value (NPV) for this model was 95.1% (93.9%-96.3%). In the absence of midline tenderness, the best model included focal neurological deficit (OR=2.601 (1.340-5.049); p=0.005) and signs of trauma to the head/face (OR=3.024 (1.898-4.815); p<0.001). The NPV was 94.3% (93.1%-95.5%).Conclusion: Midline tenderness, focal neurological deficit and signs of trauma to the head/face were significant in this older population. The absence of all three variables indicates lower likelihood of CSI for patients≥65. Future observational studies are warranted to prospectively validate this model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Uncontrolled bleeding is a preventable cause of death in rural trauma. Herein, we examined the appropriateness, effectiveness, and safety of tourniquet application for bleeding control in a rural trauma system. Methods: Medical records of adult patients admitted to our academic Level I trauma center between July 2015 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics (age, gender), injury (Injury severity score, Glascow Coma scale, mechanism of injury), tourniquet (type, tourniquet application site, tourniquet duration, place of application and removal, indication), and outcome data (complications such as amputation, acute kidney injury, rhabdomyolysis, or nerve palsy and mortality) were collected. Tourniquet indications, effectiveness, and complications were evaluated. Data were compared to those in urban settings. Results: Ninety-two patients (94 tourniquets) were identified, of which 58.7% incurred penetrating injuries. Eighty-seven tourniquets (92.5%) were applied in the prehospital setting. Twenty tourniquets (21.3%) were applied to patients without an appropriate indication. Two of these tourniquets were applied in a hospital setting, while 18 occurred in the prehospital setting (p = 0.638). Patients with a non-indicated tourniquet presented with a higher hemoglobin level on admission, received less packed red blood cell units within the first 24 hours of hospitalization, and were less likely to require surgery for hemostasis. None of the non-indicated tourniquets led to a complication. Indicated tourniquets were deemed ineffective in seven cases (9.5%); they were all applied in the prehospital setting. The average tourniquet time was 123 min in rural vs. 48 min in urban settings, p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in mortality, amputation rates and incidence of nerve palsy between the rural and urban settings. Conclusion: Even with long transport times, early tourniquet application for hemorrhage control in rural settings is safe with no significant attributable morbidity and mortality compared to published studies on urban civilian tourniquet use. The observed rates of non-indicated and ineffective tourniquets indicate suboptimal tourniquet usage and application. Opportunity exists for standardized hemorrhage control training on the use of direct pressure and pressure dressings, indications for tourniquet use, and effective tourniquet application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]