Operative Trauma and Mortality: The Role of Volume.

INTRODUCTION: Operative volume is associated with improved outcomes across many surgical specialties, but this relationship has not been illustrated clearly in trauma. This study sought to evaluate the relationship between operative trauma volume and mortality, hypothesizing that increased volume would be associated with improved survival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for patients ≥18 y undergoing hemorrhage control surgery at level I or II trauma centers from 2017 to 2020. Hierarchical logistic regression was performed to evaluate the association between operative volume and in-hospital mortality, controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: 55,469 patients were included and treated at 516 centers. After adjustment, the operative volume was significantly associated with reduced mortality (OR 0.999, 95% CI 0.997-0.999, P = 0.018). However, there was considerable variability in volumes, with the busiest 5% of centers performing 90-294 operations per year, compared to 7-35 in the middle 50% of centers. To evaluate whether volume exhibited a uniform effect, the top 5% of trauma centers were excluded on subset analysis, with operative volume becoming nonsignificant in the remaining 491 centers (OR 0.999, 95% CI 0.996-1.001, P = 0.274). CONCLUSIONS: Higher operative trauma volume is associated with reduced mortality for patients undergoing hemorrhage control surgery, but this mortality benefit appears to arise solely from very high-volume centers. The time-sensitive nature of hemorrhage control surgery makes centralization at this level impractical. Future efforts should focus on investigating the relationship between patient proximity to trauma centers and center volume as well as identifying modifiable factors common to high-volume centers that may be widely implemented.

The Surgical Infection Society Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection: 2024 Update.

Background: The Surgical Infection Society (SIS) published evidence-based guidelines for the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) in 1992, 2002, 2010, and 2017. Here, we present the most recent guideline update based on a systematic review of current literature. Methods: The writing group, including current and former members of the SIS Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee and other individuals with content or guideline expertise within the SIS, working with a professional librarian, performed a systematic review using PubMed/Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from 2016 until February 2024. Keyword descriptors combined "surgical site infections" or "intra-abdominal infections" in adults limited to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Additional relevant publications not in the initial search but identified during literature review were included. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system was utilized to evaluate the evidence. The strength of each recommendation was rated strong (1) or weak (2). The quality of the evidence was rated high (A), moderate (B), or weak (C). The guideline contains new recommendations and updates to recommendations from previous IAI guideline versions. Final recommendations were developed by an iterative process. All writing group members voted to accept or reject each recommendation. Results: This updated evidence-based guideline contains recommendations from the SIS for the treatment of adult patients with IAI. Evidence-based recommendations were developed for antimicrobial agent selection, timing, route of administration, duration, and de-escalation; timing of source control; treatment of specific pathogens; treatment of specific intra-abdominal disease processes; and implementation of hospital-based antimicrobial agent stewardship programs. Summary: This document contains the most up-to-date recommendations from the SIS on the prevention and management of IAI in adult patients.

Intra-abdominal infections survival guide: a position statement by the Global Alliance For Infections In Surgery.

Intra-abdominal infections (IAIs) are an important cause of morbidity and mortality in hospital settings worldwide. The cornerstones of IAI management include rapid, accurate diagnostics; timely, adequate source control; appropriate, short-duration antimicrobial therapy administered according to the principles of pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and antimicrobial stewardship; and hemodynamic and organ functional support with intravenous fluid and adjunctive vasopressor agents for critical illness (sepsis/organ dysfunction or septic shock after correction of hypovolemia). In patients with IAIs, a personalized approach is crucial to optimize outcomes and should be based on multiple aspects that require careful clinical assessment. The anatomic extent of infection, the presumed pathogens involved and risk factors for antimicrobial resistance, the origin and extent of the infection, the patient's clinical condition, and the host's immune status should be assessed continuously to optimize the management of patients with complicated IAIs.

Effect of local prolonged-release incisional doxycycline on surgical site infection prophylaxis in abdominal colorectal surgery: The SHIELD 1 randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Despite advanced infection control practices including preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis, surgical site infection (SSI) remains a challenge. This study aimed to test whether local administration of a novel prolonged-release Doxycycline-Polymer-Lipid Encapsulation matriX (D-PLEX) before wound closure, concomitantly with standard of care (SOC), reduces the incidence of incisional SSI after elective abdominal colorectal surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a phase 3 randomized, controlled, double-blind, multinational study (SHIELD 1) between June 2020 to June 2022. Patients with at least one abdominal incision length >10 cm were randomized 1:1 to the investigational arm (D-PLEX+SOC) or control (SOC) arm . The primary outcome was a composite of incisional SSI, incisional reintervention, and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 974 patients were analyzed, of whom 579 (59.4%) were male. The mean age (±SD) was 64.2±13.0 years. The primary outcome occurred in 9.3% of D-PLEX patients versus 12.1% (SOC) (risk difference estimate [RDE], -2.8%; 95% CI [-6.7%, 1.0%], P=0.1520). In a pre-specified analysis by incision length, a reduction in the primary outcome was observed in the >20 cm subpopulation: 8% (D-PLEX) versus 17.5% (SOC) (RDE, -9.4%; 95% CI [-15.5%, -3.2%], P=0.0032). In the >10 to ≤20 cm subgroup, no reduction was observed: 9.9% versus 7.9% (RDE, 2.0%; 95% CI [-2.8%, 6.7%], P=0.4133). Exploratory post-hoc analyses of patients with increased SSI risk (≥1 patient-specific comorbidity) indicated a reduction in the incidence of the primary outcome: 9.0% (D-PLEX) versus 13.7% (SOC) (RDE, -4.8%; 95% CI [-9.5%, -0.1%], P=0.0472). The D-PLEX safety profile was good (no difference in treatment-emergent adverse events between the groups). CONCLUSIONS: The SHIELD-1 study did not meet its primary outcome of reduced incisional SSI, incisional reinterventions, or all-cause mortality. Pre-specified and post-hoc analyses suggested that D-PLEX may reduce the incidence of the primary outcome event in patients with increased SSI risk, including lengthy incisions.

An Exploratory and Qualitative Analysis of Self-Reported Evaluations for Fever.

Background: Despite the high prevalence of post-operative fever, a variety of approaches are taken as to the components of a fever evaluation, when it should be undertaken, and when empiric antibiotic agents should be started. Hypothesis: There is a lack of consensus surrounding many common components of a post-operative fever evaluation. Patients and Methods: The Surgical Infection Society membership was surveyed to determine practices surrounding evaluation of post-operative fever. Eight scenarios were posed in febrile (38.5°C), post-operative general surgery or trauma patients, with 19 possible components of work-up (physical examination, complete blood count [CBC], fungal biomarkers, lactate and procalcitonin [PCT] concentrations, cultures, imaging) and management (antibiotic agents). Each scenario was then re-considered for intensive care unit (ICU) patients (intubated/unstable hemodynamics). Agreement on a parameter (<1/4 or >3/4 of respondents) achieved consensus, positive or negative. Parameters between had equipoise; α was set at 0.05. Results: Among the examined scenarios, only CBC and physical examination received positive consensus across most scenarios. Blood/urine cultures, imaging, lactate, inflammatory biomarkers, and the empiric administration of antibiotic agents did not reach consensus; support was variable depending on the clinical scenario, illness severity, and the individual preferences of the answering clinician. The qualitative portion of the survey identified "fever threshold and duration," "clinical suspicion," and "physiologic manifestation" as the most important factors for deciding about the initiation of a fever evaluation and the potential empiric administration of antibiotic agents. Conclusions: There is consensus only for physical and examination routine laboratory work when initiating the evaluation of febrile post-operative patients. However, there are multiple components of a fever evaluation that individual respondents would select depending on the clinical scenario and severity of illness. Parameters demonstrating equipoise are potential candidates for formal guidance or pragmatic prospective trials.

Rapid Critical Care Training for Nurses Deployed to Intensive Care Units During the COVID-19 Surge.

BACKGROUND: During the first COVID-19 pandemic wave, non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) nurses were deployed to temporary ICUs to provide critical care for the patient surge. A rapid critical care training program was designed to prepare them to care for patients in either temporary or permanent ICUs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of this training program in preparing non-ICU nurses to provide critical care for COVID-19 patients in temporary ICUs. METHODS: A survey was used to evaluate the impact of rapid critical care training on nurses' critical care skills and compare the experiences of nurses deployed to temporary versus permanent ICUs. Data were analyzed with χ2 and Spearman ρ tests with α = .05. RESULTS: Compared with nurses in other locations, nurses deployed to temporary ICUs were less likely to report improved capability in managing mechanical ventilation; infusions of sedative, vasoactive, and paralytic agents; and continuous renal replacement therapy. Nurses in temporary ICUs also reported being less prepared to care for critically ill patients (all P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The rapid training program provided basic critical care knowledge for nurses in temporary ICUs, but experiences differed significantly between those deployed to temporary versus permanent ICUs. Although participants believed they provided safe care, nurses with no critical care experience cannot be expected to learn comprehensive critical care from expedited instruction; more formal clinical support is needed for nurses in temporary ICUs. Rapid critical care training can meet emergency needs for nurses capable of providing critical care.

A decade of firearm injuries: Have we improved?

BACKGROUND: Firearm injuries are a growing public health issue, with marked increases coinciding with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study evaluates temporal trends over the past decade, hypothesizing that despite a growing number of injuries, mortality would be unaffected. In addition, the study characterizes the types of centers affected disproportionately by the reported firearm injury surge in 2020. METHODS: Patients 18 years and older with firearm injuries from 2011 to 2020 were identified retrospectively using the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB®). Trauma centers not operating for the entirety of the study period were excluded to allow for temporal comparisons. Joinpoint regression and risk-standardized mortality ratios (SMR) were used to evaluate injury counts and adjusted mortality over time. Subgroup analysis was performed to describe centers with the largest increases in firearm injuries in 2020. RESULTS: A total of 238,674 patients, treated at 420 unique trauma centers, met inclusion criteria. Firearm injuries increased by 31.1% in 2020, compared to an annual percent change of 2.4% from 2011 to 2019 ( p = 0.01). Subset analysis of centers with the largest changes in firearm injuries in 2020 found that they were more often Level I centers, with higher historic trauma volumes and percentages of firearm injuries ( p < 0.001). Unadjusted mortality decreased by 0.9% from 2011 to 2020, but after controlling for demographics, injury characteristics and physiology, there was no difference in adjusted mortality over the same time period. However, among patients with injury severity scores ≥25, adjusted mortality improved compared with 2011 (SMR of 0.950 in 2020; 95% confidence interval, 0.916-0.986). CONCLUSION: Firearm injuries pose an increasing burden to trauma systems, with Level I and high-volume centers seeing the largest growth in 2020. Despite increasing numbers of firearm injuries, mortality has remained unchanged over the past decade. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Utilization of Emergency Medical Services in New York City.

Background: This study evaluates trends in the utilization of emergency medical services (EMS) in New York City, the "epicenter" of the first "wave" of the coronavirus pandemic. We hypothesize that EMS call volumes decreased overall in New York City during the first year of the pandemic, specifically with respect to trauma/injury calls. Contrarily, we posit that calls for "sick" events increased given pervasive fear of virus transmission. Materials and Methods: Retrospective New York City EMS calls data (January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020) were obtained from the NYC Open Data/EMS Incident Dispatch database. Total EMS calls, trauma/injury calls, and "sick" event calls were collected for New York City and for all five boroughs. Census data for each borough were used to weigh daily EMS calls per 100,000 individuals. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare pre-pandemic (2019 to March 2020) versus pandemic (April 2020 to December 2020) EMS call volumes, p = 0.05. Results: Median daily EMS calls per 100,000 individuals decreased 21.6% at the start of the pandemic across New York City (pre-pandemic, 3,262 calls; pandemic, 2,556 calls; p < 0.001) and similarly decreased when stratified by borough (all, p < 0.001). Median daily trauma/injury and sick event calls per 100,000 also decreased in New York City and the five boroughs from pre-pandemic to pandemic time periods (all, p < 0.001). Discussion and Conclusions: These data reflect an unprecedented window into EMS utilization during an infectious disease pandemic. As decreased EMS utilization for multiple conditions likely reflects delayed or impeded access to care, utilization data have important implications for provision of acute care services during possible future disruptions related to the pandemic.

Self-Reported Diagnosis and Management of Surgical Site Infection Highlights Lack of Objective Measures and Treatment Guidance.

Background: There is little guidance regarding empiric therapy for superficial surgical site infections (SSIs). Management of incisions with signs of SSI lacks consensus and management is variable among individual surgeons. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society was surveyed regarding management of SSIs. Cases were provided with varying wound descriptions, initial wound class (WC), post-operative day, and presence of a prosthesis. Responses were in multiple-choice format; statistics: χ2; α = 0.05. Results: Seventy-eight members responded. For appearance scenarios, respondents believed that both mild erythema (55%) and clear drainage (64%) could be observed, whereas substantial (>3 cm) erythema or purulence should be treated with complete (22% and 50%) or partial (55% and 40%) opening of the incision. Degree of erythema did not influence administration of antibiotic agents, but purulence was more likely than clear drainage to be treated with antibiotics (38% vs. 6%; p < 0.001). There were no differences based on WC, except that clean cases were more likely than higher WC scenarios to be treated with gram-positive coverage alone (WC 1 [26%] vs. 2 [10%] vs. 3 [13%] vs. 4 [4%]; p < 0.001). Post-operative day (POD) three appeared to be an inflection point for more aggressive treatment of suspected incisional SSI, with fewer (POD 0 [86%] vs. POD day 3 [54%]; p < 0.001) reporting observation. Respondents were more likely to obtain imaging, start broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and return to the operating room for purulence in the presence of a mesh. Conclusions: Presented with escalating possibility of SSI, respondents reported lower rates of observation, increased use of antibiotic agents, and increased surgical drainage. Many scenarios lack consensus regarding appropriate therapy. The complete elimination of SSIs is unlikely to be accomplished soon, and this study provides a framework for understanding how surgeons approach SSIs, and potential areas for further research or pragmatic guidance.

Different Surgeon, Different Closure: Lack of Consensus on Appropriate Closure Technique for Various Case Scenarios.

Background: Many techniques for closure of surgical incisions are available to the surgeon, but there is minimal guidance regarding which technique(s) should be utilized at the conclusion of surgery and under what circumstances. Hypothesis: Management of incisions at the conclusion of surgery lacks consensus and varies among individual surgeons. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society membership was surveyed on the management of incisions at the conclusion of surgery. Several case scenarios were provided to test the influences of operation type, intra-operative contamination, and hemodynamic stability on incision management (e.g., close fascia or skin, use of incision/wound vacuum-assisted closure [VAC] device). Responses by two-thirds of participants were required to achieve consensus. Data analysis by χ2 test and logistic regression, a = 0.05. Response heterogeneity was quantified by the Shannon index (SI). Results: Among 78 respondents, consensus was achieved for elective splenectomy (91% close skin/dry dressing). Open appendectomy and left colectomy/end-colostomy had the greatest heterogeneity (SI, 1.68 and 1.63, respectively). During trauma laparotomy, the majority used damage control for hemodynamic instability (53%-67%) but not for hemodynamically stable patients (0%-1.3%; p < 0.001). Additional consensus was achieved for close skin/dry dressing for hemodynamically stable trauma splenectomy patients (87%) and fascia open/wound VAC for hemodynamically unstable colon resection/anastomosis (67%). Fecal diversion for rectal injury and colon resection/anastomosis (both when hemodynamically stable) had high heterogeneity (SI, 1.56 and 1.48, respectively). In penetrating trauma, sentiment was for more use of wet-to-dry dressings and incision/wound VAC with increased contamination in hemodynamically stable patients. Conclusions: Damage control was favored in hemodynamically unstable trauma patients, with use of wet-to-dry dressings and incision/wound VAC with spillage after penetrating trauma. However, most scenarios did not achieve consensus. High variability of practices regarding incision management at the conclusion of surgery was confirmed. Prospective studies and evidence-based guidance are needed to guide decision making at end-operation.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in a health care worker population during the early pandemic.

BACKGROUND: While others have reported severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2(SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence studies in health care workers (HCWs), we leverage the use of a highly sensitive coronavirus antigen microarray to identify a group of seropositive health care workers who were missed by daily symptom screening that was instituted prior to any epidemiologically significant local outbreak. Given that most health care facilities rely on daily symptom screening as the primary method to identify SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers, here, we aim to determine how demographic, occupational, and clinical variables influence SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among health care workers. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional survey of HCWs for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity conducted from May 15th to June 30th 2020 at a 418-bed academic hospital in Orange County, California. From an eligible population of 5,349 HCWs, study participants were recruited in two ways: an open cohort, and a targeted cohort. The open cohort was open to anyone, whereas the targeted cohort that recruited HCWs previously screened for COVID-19 or work in high-risk units. A total of 1,557 HCWs completed the survey and provided specimens, including 1,044 in the open cohort and 513 in the targeted cohort. Demographic, occupational, and clinical variables were surveyed electronically. SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was assessed using a coronavirus antigen microarray (CoVAM), which measures antibodies against eleven viral antigens to identify prior infection with 98% specificity and 93% sensitivity. RESULTS: Among tested HCWs (n = 1,557), SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was 10.8%, and risk factors included male gender (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.06), exposure to COVID-19 outside of work (2.29, 1.14-4.29), working in food or environmental services (4.85, 1.51-14.85), and working in COVID-19 units (ICU: 2.28, 1.29-3.96; ward: 1.59, 1.01-2.48). Amongst 1,103 HCWs not previously screened, seropositivity was 8.0%, and additional risk factors included younger age (1.57, 1.00-2.45) and working in administration (2.69, 1.10-7.10). CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity is significantly higher than reported case counts even among HCWs who are meticulously screened. Seropositive HCWs missed by screening were more likely to be younger, work outside direct patient care, or have exposure outside of work.

Six Long-Standing Questions about Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Surgery.

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common adverse event occurring in surgical patients. Optimal prevention of SSIs requires the bundled integration of a variety of measures before, during, and after surgery. Surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) is an effective measure for preventing SSIs. It aims to counteract the inevitable introduction of bacteria that colonize skin or mucosa into the surgical site during the intervention. This document aims to guide surgeons in appropriate administration of SAP by addressing six key questions. The expert panel identifies a list of principles in response to these questions that every surgeon around the world should always respect in administering SAP.

Infection or Inflammation: Are Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis, Acute Cholecystitis, and Acute Diverticulitis Infectious Diseases?

Background: It is recognized increasingly that common surgical infections of the peritoneal cavity may be treated with antibiotic agents alone, or source control surgery with short-course antimicrobial therapy. By extension, testable hypotheses have emerged that such infections may not actually be infectious diseases, but rather represent inflammation that can be treated successfully with neither surgery nor antibiotic agents. The aim of this review is to examine extant data to determine which of uncomplicated acute appendicitis (uAA), uncomplicated acute calculous cholecystitis (uACC), or uncomplicated mild acute diverticulitis (umAD) might be amenable to management using supportive therapy alone, consistent with the principles of antimicrobial stewardship. Methods: Review of pertinent English-language literature and expert opinion. Results: Only two small trials have examined whether uAA can be managed with observation and supportive therapy alone, one of which is underpowered and was stopped prematurely because of challenging patient recruitment. Data are insufficient to determine the safety and efficacy of non-antibiotic therapy of uAA. Uncomplicated acute calculous cholecystitis is not primarily an infectious disease; infection is a secondary phenomenon. Even when bactibilia is present, there is no high-quality evidence to suggest that mild disease should be treated with antibiotic agents. There is evidence to indicate that antibiotic prophylaxis is indicated for urgent/emergency cholecystectomy for uACC, but not in the post-operative period. Uncomplicated mild acute diverticulitis, generally Hinchey 1a or 1b in current nomenclature, does not benefit from antimicrobial agents based on multiple clinical studies. The implication is that umAD is inflammatory and not an infectious disease. Non-antimicrobial management is reasonable. Conclusions: Among the considered disease entities, the evidence is strongest that umAD is not an infectious disease and can be treated without antibiotic agents, intermediate regarding uACC, and lacking for uAA. A plausible hypothesis is that these inflammatory conditions are related to disruption of the normal microbiome, resulting in dysbiosis, which is defined as an imbalance of the natural microflora, especially of the gut, that is believed to contribute to a range of conditions of ill health. As for restorative pre- or probiotic therapy to reconstitute the microbiome, no recommendation can be made in terms of treatment, but it is not recommended for prevention of primary or recurrent disease.

Omicron, Long-COVID, and the Safety of Elective Surgery for Adults and Children: Joint Guidance from the Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee of the Surgical Infection Society and the Surgery Strategic Clinical Network, Alberta Health Services.

Background: Active and recent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections are associated with morbidity and mortality after surgery in adults. Current recommendations suggest delaying elective surgery in survivors for four to 12 weeks, depending on initial illness severity. Recently, the predominant causes of COVID-19 are the highly transmissible/less virulent Omicron variant/subvariants. Moreover, increased survivability of primary infections has engendered the long-COVID syndrome, with protean manifestations that may persist for months. Considering the more than 600,000,000 COVID-19 survivors, surgeons will likely be consulted by recovered patients seeking elective operations. Knowledge gaps of the aftermath of Omicron infections raise questions whether extant guidance for timing of surgery still applies to adults or should apply to the pediatric population. Methods: Scoping review of relevant English-language literature. Results: Most supporting data derive from early in the pandemic when the Alpha variant of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) predominated. The Omicron variant/subvariants generally cause milder infections with less organ dysfunction; many infections are asymptomatic, especially in children. Data are scant with respect to adult surgical outcomes after Omicron infection, and especially so for pediatric surgical outcomes at any stage of the pandemic. Conclusions: Numerous knowledge gaps persist with respect to the disease, the recovered pre-operative patient, the nature of the proposed procedure, and supporting data. For example, should the waiting period for all but urgent elective surgery be extended beyond 12 weeks, e.g., after serious/critical illness, or for patients with long-COVID and organ dysfunction? Conversely, can the waiting periods for asymptomatic patients or vaccinated patients be shortened? How shall children be risk-stratified, considering the distinctiveness of pediatric COVID-19 and the paucity of data? Forthcoming guidelines will hopefully answer these questions but may require ongoing modifications based on additional new data and the epidemiology of emerging strains.

Thrombotic Events and Anticoagulation-Related Bleeding Complications in Critically Ill Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Background: Thrombosis (T) is common in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients, and d-dimer concentrations correlate with outcomes. Controversy exists with regards to anticoagulation (AC) for patients. We implemented a full-heparinization AC protocol from the onset of the pandemic and hypothesized that a safety signal would be undetectable. Patients and Methods: Prospective evaluation of 111 patients with COVID-19 critical illness hospitalized from March to June 2020. All patients received therapeutic heparinoid-based AC from admission. Incidences of T, bleeding (B), or both (BT) were noted. The primary outcome was mortality. Kruskal-Wallis test and logistic regression were performed. Results are expressed as n (%), median (interquartile range) and odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Alpha was set at 0.05. Results: Thirty-two patients (28%) had T, 23 (20%) had B, and 14 (12%) had BT; 42 (40%) patients were unaffected. Two logistic regression models (outcome = mortality) evaluated BT as T, or BT as B. For BT as T, neither T, B, nor male gender predicted mortality; similarly, for BT as B, neither T, B, nor male gender predicted mortality. Factors associated with higher odds of death included higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.13; p = 0.0045), higher d-dimer concentration (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01; p = 0.043), and higher activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT; OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.16; p = 0.010). Conclusions: Neither T nor B predicted mortality in this prospective cohort of anticoagulated patients with COVID-19 critical illness. These data support continued full-dose heparinoid prophylaxis.

Improving Communication and Response to Clinical Deterioration to Increase Patient Safety in the Intensive Care Unit.

BACKGROUND: In the critical care setting, early recognition of clinical decompensation is imperative to trigger prompt intervention and optimize patient outcomes. LOCAL PROBLEM: In a 20-bed surgical intensive care unit of an urban academic medical center, cases of clinical deterioration that highlighted opportunities to improve the communication process prompted a reassessment of health care provider roles and responsibilities. METHODS: A quality improvement initiative was implemented to enhance communication among intensive care unit clinical staff members, improve the timeliness of reporting clinical deterioration, and ensure implementation of timely, appropriate interventions to eliminate adverse outcomes. INTERVENTIONS: Nurses were surveyed to determine their perceptions of communication and collaboration among providers. Education was provided that focused on familiarizing nurses with clinical conditions necessitating direct notification of the attending surgical intensivist and included review of a case in which escalation of care did not occur. Multidisciplinary rounds were expanded to engage night-shift nurses in clinical discussions and decision-making. A template was created to document episodes of escalation in the electronic health record. RESULTS: Since implementation of the quality improvement interventions, no incidents of patient harm or death related to failure to escalate have occurred to date. A total of 16 episodes of escalation for clinical deterioration were documented in the electronic health record. Most nurses reported an increased level of confidence in understanding when to escalate concerns about clinical deterioration. CONCLUSION: Implementing a multimodal program to empower nurses to escalate clinical concerns directly to the attending physician eliminated adverse events related to failure to escalate.

Video-Based Stop the Bleed Training: A New Era in Education.

INTRODUCTION: Uncontrolled bleeding is a leading cause of preventable death. The "Stop the Bleed" (StB) program trains laypersons in hemorrhage control. This study evaluated the efficacy of video-based StB training. METHODS: Participants watched two different videos: a didactic video (DdV) and a technical video (TeV) demonstrating proper techniques for StB skills (i.e., direct pressure [DP], wound packing [WP], and tourniquet application [TA]). Then, they completed a standardized skills examination (SE). Participants were surveyed at three different time points (baseline, post-DdV, and post-SE) for comparison. We compared paired categorical and continuous variables with the McNemar-Bowker test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test, respectively. Alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: One hundred six participants were enrolled: 52% were female and the median age was 23 y (22, 24). At baseline, 29%, 8%, and 13% reported being somewhat or extremely confident with DP, WP, and TA, respectively. These percentages increased to 92%, 79%, and 76%, respectively, after the DdV (all, P < 0.0001). After the TeV and SE, percentages increased further to 100%, 96%, and 100% (all, P < 0.0001). During the SE, 96%, 99%, and 89% of participants were able to perform DP, WP, and TA without prompting. Among participants, 98% agreed that the video course was effective and 79% agreed that the DdV and TeV were engaging. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a novel paradigm of video-based StB learning combined with an in-person, standardized SE. Confidence scores in performing the three crucial StB tasks increased significantly during and after course completion. Through remote learning, StB could be disseminated more widely.

Ertapenem Concentrations in Obese Patients Undergoing Surgery.

Background: Antimicrobial prophylaxis is a cornerstone to preventing surgical site infections (SSIs). Ertapenem, a carbapenem antibiotic, is commonly used for surgical prophylaxis for many different procedures, including patients undergoing colorectal and other gastrointestinal surgeries. Obesity complicates surgical intervention and increases the risk for SSIs. This study aims to describe the pharmacokinetics of ertapenem for surgical prophylaxis using a population pharmacokinetic model. Patients and Methods: Ten patients were recruited and given a single dose of ertapenem 1 g intravenous over 30 minutes. Plasma samples were obtained at multiple time points over 24 hours and assayed via validated high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Pharmacokinetic analyses were conducted using a population pharmacokinetic analysis to generate pharmacokinetic parameters used in the subsequent 5,000 patient Monte Carlo simulation. The probability of target attainment (PTA) for free drug concentrations remaining above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) for ≥40% was used. Results: The mean maximum plasma concentration and area under the concentration time curve (AUC0-∞) was 40.7 ± 16.5 and 148.8 ± 28.0, respectively, with a half-life of the terminal portion to be 4.3 ± 0.8 hours. Monte Carlo simulations observed PTAs above 90% for MICs ≤0.25 and ≤0.125 mcg/mL in surgeries up to three and four hours, respectively. Sufficiently high PTAs were not attainable for MICs of ≥0.5 mcg/mL. Conclusions: Ertapenem given as 1 g single dose may be an appropriate candidate for surgical prophylaxis in obese patients undergoing surgeries of four hours or less.

Factors associated with limitation of care after fatal injury.

BACKGROUND: There is variability in end-of-life care of trauma patients. Many survive resuscitation but die after limitation of care (LoC). This study investigated LoC at a level I center. METHODS: Adult trauma deaths between January 2016 and June 2020 were reviewed. Patients were stratified into "full code" versus any LoC (i.e., do not resuscitate, no escalation, or withdrawal of care) and by timing to LoC. Emergency department and "brain" deaths were excluded. Unadjusted logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards were used for analyses. Results include n (%) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with α = 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included; 15 patients (8%) died full code and 158 (91%) died after LoC. Seventy-seven patients (48%) underwent incremental LoC. Age (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08; p = 0.0010) and female sex (OR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.01-13.64; p = 0.0487) increased the odds of LoC; number of anatomic injuries (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98; p = 0.0146), chest injuries (Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score chest, >3) (OR, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.26; p = 0.0021), extremity injury (AIS score, >3) (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.64; p = 0.0170), and hospital complications equal to 1 (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.78; p = 0.0201) or ≥2 (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04-0.87; p = 0.0319) decreased the odds of LoC. For those having LoC, final limitations were implemented in <14 days for 83% of patients; markers of injury severity (e.g., Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and AIS score) increased the odds of early LoC implementation. CONCLUSION: Most patients died after LoC was implemented in a timely fashion. Significant head injury increased the odds of LoC. The number of injuries, severe chest and extremity injuries, and increasing number of complications decreased the odds of LoC, presumably because patients died before LoCs were initiated. Understanding factors contributing to end-of-life care could help guide discussions regarding LoCs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.