Identifying Age-Specific Risk Factors for Poor Outcomes After Trauma With Machine Learning.

INTRODUCTION: Risk stratification for poor outcomes is not currently age-specific. Risk stratification of older patients based on observational cohorts primarily composed of young patients may result in suboptimal clinical care and inaccurate quality benchmarking. We assessed two hypotheses. First, we hypothesized that risk factors for poor outcomes after trauma are age-dependent and, second, that the relative importance of various risk factors are also age-dependent. METHODS: A cohort study of severely injured adult trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit 2014-2018 was performed using trauma registry data. Random forest algorithms predicting poor outcomes (death or complication) were built and validated using three cohorts: (1) patients of all ages, (2) younger patients, and (3) older patients. Older patients were defined as aged 55 y or more to maintain consistency with prior trauma literature. Complications assessed included acute renal failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, cardiac arrest, unplanned intubation, unplanned intensive care unit admission, and unplanned return to the operating room, as defined by the trauma quality improvement program. Mean decrease in model accuracy (MDA), if each variable was removed and scaled to a Z-score, was calculated. MDA change ≥4 standard deviations between age cohorts was considered significant. RESULTS: Of 5489 patients, 25% were older. Poor outcomes occurred in 12% of younger and 33% of older patients. Head injury was the most important predictor of poor outcome in all cohorts. In the full cohort, age was the most important predictor of poor outcomes after head injury. Within age cohorts, the most important predictors of poor outcomes, after head injury, were surgery requirement in younger patients and arrival Glasgow Coma Scale in older patients. Compared to younger patients, head injury and arrival Glasgow Coma Scale had the greatest increase in importance for older patients, while systolic blood pressure had the greatest decrease in importance. CONCLUSIONS: Supervised machine learning identified differences in risk factors and their relative associations with poor outcomes based on age. Age-specific models may improve hospital benchmarking and identify quality improvement targets for older trauma patients.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Severe Abdominal Trauma: A Secondary Analysis of the Damage Control Laparotomy Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following abdominal trauma. We hypothesized that patients undergoing definitive laparotomy (DEF) would have better PROs compared to those treated with damage control laparotomy (DCL). METHODS: The DCL Trial randomized DEF versus DCL in abdominal trauma. PROs were measured using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D) questionnaire at discharge and six months postdischarge (1 = perfect health, 0 = death, and <0 = worse than death) and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist-Civilian. Unadjusted Bayesian analysis with a neutral prior was used to assess the posterior probability of achieving minimal clinically important difference. RESULTS: Of 39 randomized patients (21 DEF versus 18 DCL), 8 patients died (7 DEF versus 1 DCL). Of those who survived, 28 completed the EQ-5D at discharge (12 DEF versus 16 DCL) and 25 at 6 mo (12 DEF versus 13 DCL). Most patients were male (79%) with a median age of 30 (interquartile range (IQR) 21-42), suffered blunt injury (56%), and were severely injured (median injury severity score 33, IQR 21 - 42). Median EQ-5D value at discharge was 0.20 (IQR 0.06 - 0.52) DEF versus 0.31 (IQR -0.03 - 0.43) DCL, and at six months 0.51 (IQR 0.30 - 0.74) DEF versus 0.50 (IQR 0.28 - 0.84) DCL. The posterior probability of minimal clinically important difference DEF versus DCL at discharge and six months was 16% and 23%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Functional deficits for trauma patients persist beyond the acute setting regardless of laparotomy status. These deficits warrant longitudinal studies to better inform patients on recovery expectations.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Surgical Rib Fixation to Nonoperative Management in Severe Chest Wall Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) to nonoperative management in severe chest wall injury. BACKGROUND: SSRF has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with clinical flail chest and respiratory failure. However, the effect of SSRF outcomes in severe chest wall injuries without clinical flail chest is unknown. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial comparing SSRF to nonoperative management in severe chest wall injury, defined as: (1) a radiographic flail segment without clinical flail or (2) ≥5 consecutive rib fractures or (3) any rib fracture with bicortical displacement. Randomization was stratified by the unit of admission as a proxy for injury severity. Primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, ventilator days, opioid exposure, mortality, and incidences of pneumonia and tracheostomy. Quality of life at 1, 3, and 6 months was measured using the EQ-5D-5L survey. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were randomized in an intention-to-treat analysis (usual care = 42, SSRF = 42). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The numbers of total fractures, displaced fractures, and segmental fractures per patient were also similar, as were the incidences of displaced fractures and radiographic flail segments. Hospital LOS was greater in the SSRF group. ICU LOS and ventilator days were similar. After adjusting for the stratification variable, hospital LOS remained greater in the SSRF group (RR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.17-1.88). ICU LOS (RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.94-2.92) and ventilator days (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.61--3.69) remained similar. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with displaced fractures were more likely to have LOS outcomes similar to their usual care counterparts. At 1 month, SSRF patients had greater impairment in mobility [3 (2-3) vs 2 (1-2), P = 0.012] and self-care [2 (1-2) vs 2 (2-3), P = 0.034] dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L. CONCLUSIONS: In severe chest wall injury, even in the absence of clinical flail chest, the majority of patients still reported moderate to extreme pain and impairment of usual physical activity at one month. SSRF increased hospital LOS and did not provide any quality of life benefit for up to 6 months.

Procainamide for shockable rhythm cardiac arrest in the Resuscitation Outcome Consortium.

BACKGROUND: With recent negative studies of amiodarone and lidocaine for cardiac arrest, research into other antiarrhythmics is warranted. Literature on procainamide in cardiac arrest is limited. We evaluated procainamide for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCA) from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC). METHODS: We included all ROC Epistry 3 OHCAs with an initial shockable rhythm that received an antiarrhythmic. We stratified cases by antiarrhythmic: procainamide, amiodarone, or lidocaine. The outcomes were prehospital return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), ROSC in the ED, and survival to hospital discharge. We defined propensity scores based on possible confounders utilizing 1:1 propensity score matching to compare procainamide to amiodarone and lidocaine. We analyzed the matched data using logistic regression. We also used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between antiarrhythmic and outcomes. RESULTS: 3087 subjects met inclusion criteria; 51 patients received only procainamide, 1776 received amiodarone, and 1418 received lidocaine. On propensity score analysis and compared to procainamide, amiodarone had similar prehospital ROSC (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.3-1.8), ED ROSC (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.3-1.3), and survival (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.3-3.1). Lidocaine also had a similar prehospital ROSC (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.4-2.2), ED ROSC (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.5-2.7), and survival (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.5-4.0). However, using multivariable regression, amiodarone had lower prehospital ROSC than procainamide (aOR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.6). CONCLUSIONS: While associated with increased prehospital ROSC when compared with amiodarone using multivariable regression, procainamide otherwise had similar prehospital ROSC, ED ROSC, and survival. The role of procainamide in OHCA remains unclear.

Age-related Opioid Exposure in Trauma: A Secondary Analysis of the Multimodal Analgesia Strategies for Trauma (MAST) Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the effect of age on opioid consumption after traumatic injury. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Older trauma patients receive fewer opioids due to decreased metabolism and increased complications, but adequacy of pain control is unknown. We hypothesized that older trauma patients require fewer opioids to achieve adequate pain control. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the multimodal analgesia strategies for trauma Trial evaluating the effectiveness of 2 multimodal pain regimens in 1561 trauma patients aged 16 to 96 was performed. Older patients (≥55 years) were compared to younger patients. Median daily oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME) consumption, average numeric rating scale pain scores, complications, and death were assessed. Multivariable analyses were performed. RESULTS: Older patients (n = 562) had a median age of 68 years (interquartile range 61-78) compared to 33 (24-43) in younger patients. Older patients had lower injury severity scores (13 [9-20] vs 14 [9-22], P = 0.004), lower average pain scores (numeric rating scale 3 [1-4] vs 4 [2-5], P < 0.001), and consumed fewer MME/day (22 [10-45] vs 52 [28-78], P < 0.001). The multimodal analgesia strategies for trauma multi-modal pain regimen was effective at reducing opioid consumption at all ages. Additionally, on multivariable analysis including pain score adjustment, each decade age increase after 55 years was associated with a 23% reduction in MME/day consumed. CONCLUSIONS: Older trauma patients required fewer opioids than younger patients with similar characteristics and pain scores. Opioid dosing for post-traumatic pain should consider age. A 20 to 25% dose reduction per decade after age 55 may reduce opioid exposure without altering pain control.

Predictors for Direct to Operating Room Admission in Severe Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Protocols for expediting critical trauma patients directly from the helipad to the operating room tend to vary by center, rely heavily on physician gestalt, and lack supporting evidence. We evaluated a population of severely injured trauma patients with the aim of determining objective factors associated with the need for immediate surgical intervention. METHODS: All highest-activation trauma patients transported by air ambulance between 1/1/16 and 12/31/17 were enrolled retrospectively. Transfer, pediatric, isolated burn, and isolated head trauma patients were excluded. Patients who underwent emergency general surgery within 30 min of arrival without the aid of cross-sectional imaging were compared to the remainder of the cohort. RESULTS: Of the 863 patients who were enrolled, 85 (10%) spent less than 30 min in the emergency department (ED) before undergoing an emergency operation. The remaining 778 patients (90%) formed the comparison group. The ED ≤ 30 min group had a higher percentage of penetrating injuries, lower blood pressure, and was more likely to have a positive FAST exam. The "Direct to Operating Room" (DTOR) score is a predictive scoring system devised to identify patients most likely to benefit from bypassing the ED. The odds ratio of emergency operation within 30 min of hospital arrival increased by 2.71 (95% confidence interval 2.23-3.29; P < 0.001) for every 1-point increase in DTOR score. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients with profound hypotension or acidosis and positive FAST were more likely to require surgery within 30 min of hospital presentation. Use of a scoring system may allow early identification of these patients in the prehospital setting by nonphysician providers.

Elicitation of prior probability distributions for a proposed Bayesian randomized clinical trial of whole blood for trauma resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Whole blood trauma resuscitation is conceptually appealing and increasingly used but lacks evidence. A randomized controlled trial is needed but challenging to design. A Bayesian approach might be more efficient and more interpretable than a conventional frequentist design. We report the results on an elicitation meeting to create prior probability distributions to help develop such a trial. METHODS: In-person expert elicitation meeting, based on Sheffield Elicitation Framework methodology. We used an interactive graphical tool to elicit the quantities of interest (24-hour mortality and certainty required). Two rounds were conducted, with an intervening discussion of deidentified responses. Individual responses were aggregated into probability distributions. RESULTS: Fifteen experts participated. The pooled belief was that the median 24-hour mortality of trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock treated with component therapy (the current standard of care) was 19% (95% credible interval [CrI], 6%-45%), and the median 24-hour mortality of those treated with whole blood, 16% (95% CrI, 5%-39%). The pooled prior distribution for the relative risk had a median of 0.84 (95% CrI, 0.26-3.1), indicating that the expert group had a 64% prior belief that whole blood decreases 24-hour mortality compared to component therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Experts had moderately strong beliefs that whole blood reduces the 24-hour mortality of trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock. These data will assist with the design and planning of a Bayesian trial of whole blood resuscitation, which will help to answer a key question in contemporary transfusion practice.

Handover Practices in Trauma and Acute Care Surgery: A Multicenter Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: The handover period has been identified as a particularly vulnerable period for communication breakdown leading to patient safety events. Clear and concise handover is especially critical in high-acuity care settings such as trauma, emergency general surgery, and surgical critical care. There is no consensus for the most effective and efficient means of evaluating or performing handover in this population. We aimed to characterize the current handover practices and perceptions in trauma and acute care surgery. METHODS: A survey was sent to 2265 members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma via email regarding handoff practices at their institution. Respondents were queried regarding their practice setting, average census, level of trauma center, and patients (trauma, emergency general surgery, and/or intensive care). Data regarding handover practices were gathered including frequency of handover, attendees, duration, timing, and formality. Finally, perceptions of handover including provider satisfaction, desire for improvement, and effectiveness were collected. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty surveys (17.1%) were completed. The majority (73.4%) of respondents practiced at level 1 trauma centers (58.9%) and were trauma/emergency general surgeons (86.5%). Thirty-five percent of respondents reported a formalized handover and 52% used a standardized tool for handover. Only 18% of respondents had ever received formal training, but most (51.6%) thought this training would be helpful. Eighty-one percent of all providers felt handover was essential for patient care, and 77% felt it prevented harm. Seventy-two percent thought their handover practice needed improvement, and this was more common as the average patient census increased. The most common suggestions for improvement were shorter and more concise handover (41.6%), different handover medium (24.5%), and adding verbal communication (13.9%). CONCLUSION: Trauma and emergency general surgeons perceive handover as essential for patient care and the majority desire improvement of their current handover practices. Methods identified to improve the handover process include standardization, simplification, and verbal interaction, which allows for shared understanding. Formal education and best practice guidelines should be developed.

A Survey of Trauma Surgeon Perceptions of Resources for Patients With Psychiatric Comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric illness is an independent risk factor for trauma and recidivism and is often comorbid in the trauma population. There is no current standard for the delivery of mental health services in trauma care. The purpose of this study was to gauge trauma surgeon perceptions of needed and currently available resources for this patient population at level 1 trauma centers in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 10-question survey was developed to capture the estimated volume of psychiatric patients admitted to level 1 trauma centers, their available psychiatric services, and perceived need for resources. It was sent to 27 trauma surgery colleagues at different level 1 trauma centers across the United States using a public survey tool. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 27 trauma surgeons responded (81% response rate). Ten centers (48%) estimated admitting 1-5 patients with preexisting serious mental illness weekly, whereas others admitted more. Eight (36%) reported not having acute situational support services available. Ten respondents (46%) did not know how many psychiatric consultants were available at their institution. Twelve surgeons (55%) reported no designated outpatient follow-up for psychiatric issues. Sixteen trauma surgeons (73%) stated that expanded psychiatric services are needed at their trauma center. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients frequently present with preexisting serious mental illness and many struggle with psychological sequelae of trauma. Over half of the surveyed surgeons reported no outpatient follow-up for these patients, and almost three quarters perceived the need for expansion of psychiatric services. In addition to a lack of resources, these findings highlight an overlooked gap in high-quality patient-centered trauma care.

Accuracy of Published Indications for Predicting Use of Damage Control During Laparotomy for Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Although studies have identified published indications that experts and practicing surgeons agree indicate use of damage control (DC) laparotomy, it is unknown whether these indications predict use of the procedure in practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a diagnostic performance study of the accuracy of a set of published appropriateness indications for predicting use of DC laparotomy. We included consecutive adults that underwent emergent laparotomy for trauma (2011-2016) at Memorial Hermann Hospital. RESULTS: We included 1141 injured adults. Two published preoperative appropriateness indications [a systolic blood pressure (BP) persistently <90 mmHg or core body temperature <34°C] produced moderate shifts in the pretest probability of conducting DC instead of definitive laparotomy. Five published intraoperative appropriateness indications produced large and often conclusive changes in the pretest probability of conducting DC during emergent laparotomy. These included the finding of a devascularized or completely disrupted pancreas, duodenum, or pancreaticoduodenal complex; an estimated intraoperative blood loss >4 L; administration of >10 U of packed red blood cells (PRBCs); and a systolic BP persistently <90 mmHg or arterial pH persistently <7.2 during operation. Most indications that produced large changes in the pretest probability of conducting DC laparotomy had an incidence of 2% or less. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that published appropriateness indications accurately predict use of DC laparotomy in practice. Intraoperative variables exert greater influence on the decision to conduct DC laparotomy than preoperative variables, and those indications that produce large shifts in the pretest probability of conducting DC laparotomy are uncommonly encountered.

Pain management in the surgical ICU patient.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Acute pain management in the surgical ICU is imperative. Effective acute pain management hastens a patient's return to normal function and avoid the negative sequelae of untreated acute pain. Traditionally, opioids have been the mainstay of acute pain management strategies in the surgical ICU, but alternative medications and management strategies are increasingly being utilized. RECENT FINDINGS: Extrapolating from lessons learned from enhanced recovery after surgery protocols, surgical intensivists are increasingly utilizing multimodal pain regimens (MMPRs) in critically ill surgical patients recovering from major surgical procedures and injuries. MMPRs incorporate both oral medications from several drug classes and regional blocks when feasible. In addition, although MMPRs may include opioids as needed, they are able to achieve effective pain control while minimizing opioid exposure. SUMMARY: Even after major elective surgery or significant injury, opioid-minimizing MMPRs can effectively treat acute pain.

Is the American College of Surgeons Online Communities a safe and useful venue to ask for surgical advice?

BACKGROUND: Many surgeons rely on the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Community Forums for advice on managing complex patients. Our objective was to assess the safety and usefulness of advice provided on the most popular surgical forum. METHODS: Overall, 120 consecutive, deidentified clinical threads were extracted from the General Surgery community in reverse chronological order. Three groups of three surgeons (mixed academic and community perspectives) evaluated the 120 threads for unsafe or dangerous posts. Positive and negative controls for safe and unsafe answers were included in 20 threads, and reviewers were blinded to their presence. Reviewers were free to access all online and professional resources. RESULTS: There were 855 unique responses (median 7, 2-15 responses per thread) to the 120 clinical threads/scenarios. The review teams correctly identified all positive and negative controls for safety. While 58(43.3%) of threads contained unsafe advice, the majority (33, 56.9%) were corrected. Reviewers felt that a there was a standard of care response for 62/120 of the threads of which 50 (80.6%) were provided by the responses. Of the 855 responses, 107 (12.5%) were considered unsafe/dangerous. CONCLUSION: The ACS Community Forums are generally a safe and useful resource for surgeons seeking advice for challenging cases. While unsafe or dangerous advice is not uncommon, other surgeons typically correct it. When utilizing the forums, advice should be taken as a congregate, and any single recommendation should be approached with healthy skepticism. However, social media such as the ACS Forums is self-regulating and can be an appropriate method for surgeons to communicate challenging problems.

Damage Control Laparotomy: High-Volume Centers Display Similar Mortality Rates Despite Differences in Country Income Level.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive analysis of trauma care between high-, middle-, and low-income countries (HIC/MIC/LIC) is needed to improve global health. Comparison of HIC and MIC outcomes after damage control laparotomy (DCL) for patients is unknown. We evaluated DCL utilization among patients treated at high-volume trauma centers in the USA and South Africa, an MIC, hypothesizing similar mortality outcomes despite differences in resources and setting. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of prospectively collected trauma databases from participating centers was performed. Injury severity, physiologic, operative data and post-operative outcomes were abstracted. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess differences between HIC/MIC for the primary outcome of mortality. RESULTS: There were 967 HIC and 602 MIC patients who underwent laparotomy. DCL occurred in 144 MIC patients (25%) and 241 HIC (24%) patients. Most sustained (58%) penetrating trauma with higher rates in the MIC compared to the HIC (71 vs. 32%, p = 0.001). Between groups, no differences were found for admission physiology, coagulopathy, or markers of shock except for increased presence of hypotension among patients in the HIC. Crystalloid infusion volumes were greater among MIC patients, and MIC patients received fewer blood products than those in the HIC. Overall mortality was 30% with similar rates between groups (29 in HIC vs. 33% in MIC, p = 0.4). On regression, base excess and penetrating injury were independent predictors of mortality but not patient residential status. CONCLUSION: Use and survival of DCL for patients with severe abdominal trauma was similar between trauma centers in HIC and MIC settings despite increased penetrating trauma and less transfusion in the MIC center. While the results overall suggest no gap in care for patients requiring DCL in this MIC, it highlights improvements that can be made in damage control resuscitation.

Impact of Social Media on Community Consultation in Exception From Informed Consent Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Exception from informed consent (EFIC) allows clinician scientists to perform much needed emergency research. Obtaining this exception, however, requires many meetings with community groups for consultation, which can make the process time-consuming and expensive. We aim to determine the impact of using social media in lieu of some community meetings in an effort to obtain an EFIC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An economic analysis of four randomized clinical trials was performed. Costs were conservatively estimated using personnel costs, social media costs, and adjusted to 2016 US dollars. People were considered reached if they attended a community meeting or were directed to the study website by social media and spent ≥1 min. RESULTS: The Early Whole Blood study required 14 meetings, reached 272 people, and cost $8260 ($30/person reached). The Pragmatic, Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios study required 14 meetings, reached 260 people, and cost $7479 overall ($29/person reached). The Prehospital Tranexamic Acid Use for Traumatic Brain Injury study required 12 meetings, reached 198 people, and cost $6340 ($32/person reached). Only the damage control laparotomy trial utilized social media in lieu of some community meetings. The damage control laparotomy trial required six meetings at which 137 people were reached. The $1000 social media campaign reached 229 people. The cost was $3977 overall and $11/person reached. CONCLUSIONS: Including a social media campaign during the EFIC process increased the number of potential patients reached and reduced total and per person costs reached costs. Obtaining an EFIC for future emergency clinical trials may be facilitated by the inclusion of a social media campaign.

Ventral Hernia Management: Expert Consensus Guided by Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To achieve consensus on the best practices in the management of ventral hernias (VH). BACKGROUND: Management patterns for VH are heterogeneous, often with little supporting evidence or correlation with existing evidence. METHODS: A systematic review identified the highest level of evidence available for each topic. A panel of expert hernia-surgeons was assembled. Email questionnaires, evidence review, panel discussion, and iterative voting was performed. Consensus was when all experts agreed on a management strategy. RESULTS: Experts agreed that complications with VH repair (VHR) increase in obese patients (grade A), current smokers (grade A), and patients with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1C) ≥ 6.5% (grade B). Elective VHR was not recommended for patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m (grade C), current smokers (grade A), or patients with HbA1C ≥ 8.0% (grade B). Patients with BMI= 30-50 kg/m or HbA1C = 6.5-8.0% require individualized interventions to reduce surgical risk (grade C, grade B). Nonoperative management was considered to have a low-risk of short-term morbidity (grade C). Mesh reinforcement was recommended for repair of hernias ≥ 2 cm (grade A). There were several areas where high-quality data were limited, and no consensus could be reached, including mesh type, component separation technique, and management of complex patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was consensus, supported by grade A-C evidence, on patient selection, the safety of short-term nonoperative management, and mesh reinforcement, among experts; there was limited evidence and broad variability in practice patterns in all other areas of practice. The lack of strong evidence and expert consensus on these topics has identified gaps in knowledge where there is need of further evidence.

Damage Control Resuscitation.

Resuscitation of the hemorrhaging patient has undergone significant changes in the last decade resulting in the concept of damage control resuscitation (DCR). Hemostatic resuscitation aims to address the physiologic derangements found in the hemorrhaging patient, namely coagulopathy, acidosis, and hypothermia. Strategies to achieve this are permissive hypotension, high ratio of plasma and platelet transfusion to packed red blood cell transfusion, and limitation of crystalloid administration. Damage control surgery aims for early hemorrhage control and minimizing operative time by delaying definitive repair until the patient's physiologic status has normalized. Together these strategies constitute DCR and have led to improved outcomes for hemorrhaging patients over the last 2 decades. Recently, DCR has been augmented by both pharmacologic and laboratory adjuncts to improve the care of the hemorrhaging patient. These include thrombelastography as a detailed measure of the clotting cascade, tranexamic acid as an antifibrinolytic, and the procoagulant activated factor VII. In this review, we discuss the strategies that makeup DCR, their adjuncts, and how they fit into the care of the hemorrhaging patient.

Acute pain management after trauma: What you need to know.

ABSTRACT: Effective acute pain control is mandatory after injury. Opioids continue to be a pillar acute pain management of strategies despite not being as effective as some nonnarcotic alternatives. An acute pain management strategy after trauma should be thoughtful, effective, and responsible. A thoughtful approach includes managing a patient's expectations for acute pain control and ensuring that interventions purposefully and rationally affect the domain of pain that is uncontrolled. An effective pain management strategy includes a multimodal approach using acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and regional anesthesia. A responsible acute pain management approach includes knowing the relative strengths of the opioids prescribed and standardized approach to opioid prescribing at discharge to minimize diversion. Acute pain management is quite understudied, and future considerations include a reliable objective measurement of pain and the evaluation of nonmedication acute pain interventions.

Impact of Intra-Operative Shock and Resuscitation on Surgical Site Infections After Trauma Laparotomy.

Background: Patients undergoing trauma laparotomy experience high rates of surgical site infection (SSI). Although intra-operative shock is a likely contributor to SSI risk, little is known about the relation between shock, intra-operative restoration of physiologic normalcy, and SSI development. Patients and Methods: A retrospective review of trauma patients who underwent emergent definitive laparotomy was performed. Using shock index and base excess at the beginning and end of laparotomy, patients were classified as normal, persistent shock, resuscitated, or new shock. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of organ/space SSI, superficial/deep SSI, and any SSI. Results: Of 1,191 included patients, 600 (50%) were categorized as no shock, 248 (21%) as resuscitated, 109 (9%) as new shock, and 236 (20%) as persistent shock, with incidence of any SSI as 51 (9%), 28 (11%), 26 (24%), and 32 (14%), respectively. These rates were similar in organ/space and superficial/deep SSIs. On multivariable analysis, resuscitated, new shock, and persistent shock were associated with increased odds of organ/space SSI (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-3.5; p < 0.001) and any SSI (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-3.2; p < 0.001), but no increased risk of superficial/deep SSI (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.6; p = 0.331). Conclusions: Although the trajectory of physiologic status influenced SSI, the presence of shock at any time during trauma laparotomy, regardless of restoration of physiologic normalcy, was associated with increased odds of SSI. Further investigation is warranted to determine the relation between peri-operative shock and SSI in trauma patients.

Opioid Risk Tool, in-hospital opioid exposure, and opioid demand predict pain outcomes following traumatic injury.

Prescribed opioids are a mainstay pain treatment after traumatic injury, but a subgroup of patients may be at risk for continued opioid use. We evaluated the predictive utility of a traditional screening tool, the Opioid Risk Tool (ORT), and two other measures: average in-hospital milligram morphine equivalents (MME) per day and an assessment of opioid demand in predicting pain outcomes. Assessments of pain-related outcomes (pain intensity, interference, injury-related stress, and need for additional pain treatment) were administered at 2 weeks and 12 months post-discharge in a sample of 34 patients hospitalized for traumatic injury. Bayesian linear models were used to evaluate changes in responses over time as a function of predictors. High-risk ORT, higher MME per day, and greater opioid demand predicted less change in outcomes over time. This report provides first evidence that malleable factors of opioid and opioid demand have utility in predicting pain outcomes following traumatic injury.

Ketamine For Acute Pain After Trauma (KAPT): A Pragmatic, Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Non-narcotic intravenous medications may be a beneficial adjunct to oral multimodal pain regimens (MMPRs) which reduce but do not eliminate opioid exposure and prescribing after trauma. We hypothesized that the addition of a sub-dissociative ketamine infusion (KI) to a standardized oral MMPR reduces inpatient opioid exposure. METHODS: Eligible adult trauma patients admitted to the intermediate or intensive care unit were randomized upon admission to our institutional MMPR per usual care (UC) or UC plus sub-dissociative KI for 24 to 72 hours after arrival. The primary outcome was morphine milligram equivalents per day (MME/d) and secondary outcomes included total MME, discharge with an opioid prescription (OP%), and rates of ketamine side effects. Bayesian posterior probabilities (pp) were calculated using neutral priors. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were included in the final analysis with 144 randomized to KI and 156 to UC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The injury severity scores for KI were 19 [14, 29] versus UC 22 [14, 29]. The KI group had a lower rate of long-bone fracture (37% versus 49%) and laparotomy (16% versus 24%). Patients receiving KI had an absolute reduction of 7 MME/day, 96 total MME, and 5% in OP%. Additionally, KI had a relative risk (RR) reduction of 19% in MME/day (RR 0.81 [0.69 - 0.95], pp = 99%), 20% in total MME (RR 0.80 [0.64, 0.99], pp = 98%), and 8% in OP% (RR 0.92 [0.76, 1.11], pp = 81%). The KI group had a higher rate of delirium (11% versus 6%); however, rates of other side effects such as arrythmias and unplanned intubations were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Addition of a sub-dissociative ketamine infusion to an oral MMPR resulted in a decrease in opioid exposure in severely injured patients. Sub-dissociative ketamine infusions can be used as a safe adjunct to decrease opioid exposure in monitored settings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I; Therapeutic/Care Management.