Comparison of thoracic epidural catheter and continuous peripheral infusion for management of traumatic rib fracture pain.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural catheters (TECs) are useful adjuncts to multimodal pain regimens in traumatic rib fractures. However, TEC placement is limited by contraindications, patient risk profile, and provider availability. Continuous peripheral infusion of ketamine and/or lidocaine is an alternative that has a modest risk profile and few contraindications. We hypothesized that patients with multiple traumatic rib fractures receiving TECs would have better pain control, in terms of daily morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) and mean pain scores (MPSs) when compared with continuous peripheral infusions of ketamine and/or lidocaine. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed traumatic rib fracture admissions to a level 1 trauma center between January 2018 and December 2020. We evaluated two treatment groups: TEC only and continuous infusion only (drip only). A linear mixed-effects model evaluated the association of MME with treatment group. An interaction term of treatment group by time (days 1-7) was included to allow estimating potential time-dependent treatment effect on MME. A zero-inflated Poisson mixed-effects model evaluated the association of treatment with MPS. Both models adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 1,647 patients were included. After multivariable analysis, a significant, time-varying dose-response relationship between treatment group and MME was found, indicating an opioid-sparing effect favoring the TEC-only group. The opioid-sparing benefit for TEC-only therapy was most prominent at day 3 (27.4 vs 36.5 MME) and day 4 (27.3 vs 36.2 MME) (p < 0.01). The drip-only group had 1.21 times greater MPS than patients with TEC only (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Drip-only analgesia is associated with higher daily MME use and MPS, compared with TEC only. The maximal benefit of TEC therapy appears to be on days 3 and 4. Prospective, randomized comparison between groups is necessary to evaluate the magnitude of the treatment effect. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Implementation and Interim Analysis of a Standardized Renal Trauma Imaging and Urinary Extravasation Management Protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The AUA recommends delayed-phase imaging (DPI) in renal injuries to evaluate the collecting system. A renal trauma imaging protocol for early conservative management of urinary extravasation (UE) was implemented to improve guideline adherence. We aimed to determine if increased adherence led to changes in outcomes. METHODS: Patients with American Association for the Surgery of Trauma III to V renal injury presenting from January 2018 to September 2022 were identified from an institutional trauma registry. Patients were included if a contrasted CT scan of the abdomen was obtained on admission. Frequency of DPI and patient outcomes were compared before and after protocol implementation. RESULTS: Of 223 included patients, 131 (58.7%) were pre protocol and 92 (41.3%) were post protocol. Following protocol implementation, the rate of DPI on admission nearly doubled from 32.8% to 58.7% (P < .001). The rate of follow-up cross-sectional imaging increased from 18.3% to 58.7% (P < .001). Although there were no significant differences in rates of immediate or delayed interventions following protocol implementation, the postprotocol immediate intervention rate did decrease to 0%. Readmissions due to symptomatic UE were unchanged after protocol implementation (0.0% vs 0.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a multidisciplinary renal trauma early imaging and management protocol improved AUA guideline adherence. With protocol adherence, there was also an elimination of immediate interventions for UE. Despite decreases in early intervention, there was no significant increase in interval interventions or UE-related readmissions. More research is needed to determine the role for routine follow-up imaging in conservative management of high-grade renal trauma.

Assessment of Prophylactic Antibiotic Coverage in Culture-positive Traumatic Open Fractures.

Guidelines provide varying recommendations for the prophylactic antimicrobial treatment of open fractures. This single-center, retrospective cohort study was conducted to determine how well an institutional prophylactic antibiotic protocol covered pathogens associated with open fractures. The authors included adult trauma patients with one or more open fractures and a positive culture from the site of the open fracture, and compared outcomes between patients who were covered by prophylactic antibiotics with patients not covered by prophylactic antibiotics. Of 957 patients evaluated, 75 were included, with 40 patients (53%) covered by the prophylactic antibiotics received. Multidrug-resistant pathogens were isolated in 23 (58%) patients covered versus 26 (74%) patients not covered (p = 0.128). The median time to positive culture was less in patients not covered by initial antibiotics compared with those who were covered (30.2 vs. 102.1 days; p = 0.003). Over half of the patients developed cultures with pathogens that were covered by their initial antibiotic prophylaxis. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 33(2):084-087, 2024).

pREBOA vs ER-REBOA impact on blood utilization and resuscitation requirements: A pilot analysis.

BACKGROUND: Partial occlusion of the aorta is a resuscitation technique designed to maximize proximal perfusion while allowing a graduated amount of distal flow to reduce the ischemic sequelae associated with complete aortic occlusion. The pREBOA catheter affords the ability to titrate perfusion as hemodynamics allows, however, the impact of this new technology for REBOA on blood use and other resuscitative requirements is currently unknown. We hypothesize pREBOA's ability to provide partial occlusion, when appropriate, decreases overall resuscitative requirements when compared to ER-REBOA. METHODS: The entire AAST AORTA Registry was used to compare resuscitation requirements between all ER-REBOA and pREBOA. Unpaired t-tests were used to compare resuscitation strategies including packed red blood cells (PRBCs), fresh frozen plasma (FFP), platelets, cryoprecipitate, crystalloids, and need for pressors. RESULTS: When comparing ER-REBOA (n=800) use to pREBOA (n=155), initial patient presentations were similar except for age (44 vs 40 p=0.026) and rates of blunt injury (78.4% vs 78.7% p<0.010). Zone-1 occlusion was used less often in ER-REBOA (65.8 vs 71.7 p=0.046). Partial occlusion was performed in 85% of pREBOA compared to 11% in ER-REBOA (p<0.050). Vitals at the time of REBOA were worse in ER-REBOA, and received significantly more units of PRBCs, FFP, platelets, and liters of crystalloids than pREBOA (p<0.05). Rates of ARDS and septic shock were lower in pREBOA (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: When comparing pREBOA to ER-REBOA, there has been a rise in Zone-1 and partial occlusion. In our pilot analysis of the AORTA Registry, there was a reduction in administration of pRBC, FFP, platelets, and crystalloids. Though further prospective studies are required, this is the first to demonstrate an association between pREBOA, partial occlusion, and reduced blood use and resuscitative requirements.

Incidence of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography after Subtotal Fenestrating and Reconstituting Cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic subtotal cholecystectomy (SC) is used for the difficult cholecystectomy, but published experience with resource use for SC is limited. We hypothesized that the need for advanced resources are common after SC. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective review of laparoscopic cholecystectomies between 2017 and 2021 at a large center. SC cases were identified using a medical record tool. Baseline characteristics were assessed with Student's t -test and chi-square test. Primary outcome was endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) within 60 days. Secondary outcomes were reconstituted SC on postoperative ERC and length of stay (LOS). Uni- and multivariable logistic regression were used for binary outcomes. Multiple linear regression was used for LOS. Covariates included were age, sex, BMI, and American Society of Anesthesiology class. RESULTS: A total of 1,222 laparoscopic cholecystectomies were performed between 2017 and 2021. Of these, 87 (7%) were SC. Male (p < 0.001) and older (p < 0.001) patients were more likely to undergo SC. Odds of postoperative ERC were higher in the SC group (odds ratio 9.79, 95% CI 5.90 to16.23, p < 0.001). There was no difference in preoperative ERC (17% vs 21%, p = 0.38). Reconstituting SC had lower odds of postoperative ERC (odds ratio 0.12, 95% CI 0.023 to 0.58, p = 0.009). LOS was 1.81 times higher in the SC group (p ≤ 0.001). Postoperative ERC was not associated with LOS (p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: We present one of the largest single-center series of SC. Patients who underwent SC are more likely to be male, older, have higher American Society of Anesthesiology class, and have increased LOS. SC should be performed when access to ERC and interventional radiology is available. In the absence of these adjuncts, reconstituting SC decreases the need for early ERC, but long-term outcomes are unknown.

Computed tomography scanning is feasible in select patients with REBOA catheter deployment.

BACKGROUND: Rapidly localizing and controlling bleeding is central to treating hemorrhagic shock. While REBOA allows temporary control, identifying the source of bleeding remains challenging. CT imaging with REBOA in place may provide information to direct hemorrhage control. The purpose of this study is to provide a descriptive summary of data comparing patients who did and did not undergo CT scan following REBOA deployment. Our hypothesis was that performing CT scan after REBOA placement in select patients is safe and can guide management of hemorrhagic shock. METHODS: We queried the AAST AORTA registry for patients receiving REBOA at our level 1 trauma center from May 2017 to December 2021. Clinical data was obtained through the Trauma Registry of the American College of Surgeons (TRACS). Comparison groups were those who underwent CT scan after REBOA deployment versus those who did not undergo CT scan after REBOA deployment. The primary outcome was inhospital mortality, and secondary outcomes included hospital-, ICU-, and ventilator-free days. RESULTS: 61 patients underwent CT scan with REBOA in place; 25 patients proceeded directly to hemorrhage control. Patients with REBOA prior to CT were more likely to have blunt mechanism, higher ISS, pelvic bleeding, and zone 3 REBOA placement. Mortality was not significantly different (51 % vs. 64 %). Patients who underwent CT with REBOA were more likely to undergo hemorrhage control in interventional radiology (43 % vs. 0 %). There was no difference in hospital-, ICU-, and ventilator-free days. DISCUSSION: We demonstrate the feasibility of performing CT in select trauma patients who undergo REBOA. We describe a pathway to enable expeditious workup and management of these patients. Optimal hemorrhage control management is impacted by CT scans when it can be performed. It is important to note that this is a severely injured patient population, and mortality is high even when hemorrhage is controlled. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Vascular imaging immediately after tourniquet removal does not increase vasospasm risk.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital tourniquet use is now standard in trauma patients with diagnosed or suspected extremity vascular injuries. Tourniquet-related vasospasm is an understudied phenomenon that may confound management by causing erroneous arterial pressure indices (APIs) and abnormalities on computed tomography angiography (CTA) that do not reflect true arterial injuries. We hypothesized that shorter intervals between tourniquet removal and CTA imaging and longer total tourniquet times would be correlated with a higher likelihood of false positive CTA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a single-institution retrospective cohort study of patients presenting to a busy, urban Level 1 Trauma Center with prehospital tourniquets from 2019 to 2021. Patients who presented with a tourniquet disengaged upon arrival or who died prior to admission to the Trauma Unit were excluded. Tourniquet duration, time between tourniquet removal and CTA imaging (CTA interval), CTA findings, and management of extremity arterial injuries were extracted. The proportion of false positive injuries on CTA was assessed for correlation with increasing time interval from tourniquet removal to CTA imaging and correlation with increasing total tourniquet time using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 251 patients were identified with prehospital tourniquets. 127 underwent CTA of the affected extremity, 96 patients had an abnormal CTA finding, and 57 (45% of total CTA patients) had false positive arterial injuries on imaging. Using multivariable logistic regression, neither the CTA interval nor the tourniquet duration was associated with false positive CTA injuries. Female sex was associated with false positive injuries on CTA (OR 2.91, 95% CI: 1.01 - 8.39). Vasospasm was cited as a possible explanation by radiologists in 40% of false positive CTA reports. CONCLUSIONS: Arterial vasospasm is a frequent finding on CTA after tourniquet use for extremity trauma, but concerns regarding tourniquet-related vasospasm should not alter trauma patient management. Neither the duration of tourniquet application nor the time interval since removal is associated with decreased CTA accuracy, and any delay in imaging does not appear to reduce the likelihood of vasospasm. These findings are important for supporting expedited care of trauma patients with severe extremity injuries.

Comparison of phenobarbital monotherapy to a benzodiazepine-based regimen for management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in the trauma population. Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are standard of care for AWS; however, given the risk of delirium with BZDs and reports of BZD-refractory withdrawal, phenobarbital (PHB) has emerged as an alternative therapy for AWS. Safety and efficacy studies of PHB for AWS in trauma patients are lacking. Our aim was to compare a BZD versus PHB protocol in the management of AWS in trauma patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a level 1 trauma center of patients at risk for AWS managed with either a BZD or a low-dose oral PHB regimen. Patients were excluded if they were taking BZDs or barbiturates before admission, received propofol or dexmedetomidine before initiation of the study drug, presented with delirium tremens or seizures, or died or discharged within 24 hours of presentation. The primary outcome was complicated AWS (seizures or alcohol withdrawal delirium/delirium tremens). Secondary outcomes included uncomplicated AWS; therapy escalation; oversedation; delirium-, intensive care unit-, and ventilator-free days; and length of stay. RESULTS: A total of 411 patients were identified; 118 received BZD, and 293 received PHB. The odds of developing complicated AWS with PHB versus BZD-based therapy were not statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21-1.39); however, patients receiving PHB were less likely to develop uncomplicated AWS (OR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.04-0.14) and less likely to require escalation of therapy (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24-0.84). The PHB group had a length of stay 3.1 days shorter than the BZD group ( p = 0.002). There was no difference in intensive care unit-, ventilator-, or delirium-free days. CONCLUSION: A PHB-based protocol for the management of AWS is a safe and effective alternative to BZD-based regimens in trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Cefepime vs Piperacillin-Tazobactam in Adults Hospitalized With Acute Infection: The ACORN Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam are commonly administered to hospitalized adults for empirical treatment of infection. Although piperacillin-tazobactam has been hypothesized to cause acute kidney injury and cefepime has been hypothesized to cause neurological dysfunction, their comparative safety has not been evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. Objective: To determine whether the choice between cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam affects the risks of acute kidney injury or neurological dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes (ACORN) randomized clinical trial compared cefepime vs piperacillin-tazobactam in adults for whom a clinician initiated an order for antipseudomonal antibiotics within 12 hours of presentation to the hospital in the emergency department or medical intensive care unit at an academic medical center in the US between November 10, 2021, and October 7, 2022. The final date of follow-up was November 4, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the highest stage of acute kidney injury or death by day 14, measured on a 5-level ordinal scale ranging from no acute kidney injury to death. The 2 secondary outcomes were the incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14 and the number of days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days. Results: There were 2511 patients included in the primary analysis (median age, 58 years [IQR, 43-69 years]; 42.7% were female; 16.3% were Non-Hispanic Black; 5.4% were Hispanic; 94.7% were enrolled in the emergency department; and 77.2% were receiving vancomycin at enrollment). The highest stage of acute kidney injury or death was not significantly different between the cefepime group and the piperacillin-tazobactam group; there were 85 patients (n = 1214; 7.0%) in the cefepime group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 92 (7.6%) who died vs 97 patients (n = 1297; 7.5%) in the piperacillin-tazobactam group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 78 (6.0%) who died (odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.13], P = .56). The incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14 did not differ between groups (124 patients [10.2%] in the cefepime group vs 114 patients [8.8%] in the piperacillin-tazobactam group; absolute difference, 1.4% [95% CI, -1.0% to 3.8%]). Patients in the cefepime group experienced fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (mean [SD], 11.9 [4.6] days vs 12.2 [4.3] days in the piperacillin-tazobactam group; odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.95]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among hospitalized adults in this randomized clinical trial, treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam did not increase the incidence of acute kidney injury or death. Treatment with cefepime resulted in more neurological dysfunction. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05094154.