Best Case/Worst Case-ICU: protocol for a multisite, stepped-wedge, randomised clinical trial of scenario planning to improve communication in the ICU in US trauma centres for older adults with serious injury.

INTRODUCTION: Poor communication about serious injury in older adults can lead to treatment that is inconsistent with patient preferences, create conflict and strain healthcare resources. We developed a communication intervention called Best Case/Worst Case-intensive care unit (ICU) that uses daily scenario planning, that is, a narrative description of plausible futures, to support prognostication and facilitate dialogue among patients, their families and the trauma ICU team. This article describes a protocol for a multisite, randomised, stepped-wedge study to test the effectiveness of the intervention on the quality of communication (QOC) in the ICU. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow all patients aged 50 and older admitted to the trauma ICU for 3 or more days after a serious injury at eight high-volume level 1 trauma centres. We aim to survey one family or 'like family' member per eligible patient 5-7 days following their loved ones' admission and clinicians providing care in the trauma ICU. Using a stepped-wedge design, we will use permuted block randomisation to assign the timing for each site to begin implementation of the intervention and routine use of the Best Case/Worst Case-ICU tool. We will use a linear mixed-effects model to test the effect of the tool on family-reported QOC (using the QOC scale) as compared with usual care. Secondary outcomes include the effect of the tool on reducing clinician moral distress (using the Measure of Moral Distress for Healthcare Professionals scale) and patients' length of stay in the ICU. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Institutional review board (IRB) approval was granted at the University of Wisconsin, and all study sites ceded review to the primary IRB. We plan to report results in peer-reviewed publications and national meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05780918.

Value in acute care surgery, part 3: Defining value in acute surgical care-It depends on the perspective.

ABSTRACT: The prior articles in this series have focused on measuring cost and quality in acute care surgery. This third article in the series explains the current ways of defining value in acute care surgery, based on different stakeholders in the health care system-the patient, the health care organization, the payer and society. The heterogenous valuations of the different stakeholders require that the framework for determining high-value care in acute care surgery incorporates all viewpoints. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Expert Opinion; Level V.

Accuracy of Trauma Surgeons Prospective Estimation of the Injury Severity Score: A Pilot Study.

Injury Severity Score (ISS) has limited utility as a prospective predictor of trauma outcomes as it is currently scored by abstractors post-discharge. This study aimed to determine accuracy of ISS estimation at time of admission. Attending trauma surgeons assessed the Abbreviated Injury Scale of each body region for patients admitted during their call, from which estimated ISS (eISS) was calculated. The eISS was considered concordant to abstracted ISS (aISS) if both were in the same category: mild (<9), moderate (9-15), severe (16-25), or critical (>25). Ten surgeons completed 132 surveys. Overall ISS concordance was 52.2%; 87.5%, 30.8%, 34.8%, and 61.7% for patients with mild, moderate, severe, and critical aISS, respectively; unweighted k = .36, weighted k = .69. This preliminarily supports attending trauma surgeons' ability to predict severity of injury in real time, which has important clinical and research implications.

Pneumopericardium following severe thoracic trauma.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic pneumopericardium (PPC) is a rare clinical entity associated with chest trauma, resulting from a pleuropericardial connection in the presence of a pneumothorax, interstitial air tracking along the pulmonary perivascular sheaths from ruptured alveoli to the pericardium, or direct trachea-bronchial-pericardial communication.  Our objectives were to describe the modern management approach to PPC and to identify variables that could improve survival with severe thoracic injury. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of the trauma registry between 2015 and 2022 at a Level I verified adult trauma center for all patients with PPC. Demographics, injury patterns, and treatment characteristics were compared between blunt and penetrating trauma. This study focused on the management strategies and the physiologic status regarding PPC and the development of tension physiology. The main outcome measure was operative versus nonoperative management. RESULTS: Over a seven-year period, there were 46,389 trauma admissions, of which 488 patients had pneumomediastinum. Eighteen patients were identified with PPC at admission. Median age was 39.5 years (range, 18-77 years), predominantly male (n = 16, 89 %), Black (n = 12, 67 %), and the majority from blunt trauma (78 %). Half had subcutaneous emphysema on presentation while 39 % had recognizable pneumomediastinum on chest x-ray. Tube thoracostomy was the most common intervention in this cohort (89 %). Despite tube thoracostomy, tension PPC was observed in three patients, two mandating emergent pericardial windows for progression to tension physiology, and the remaining requiring reconstruction of a blunt tracheal disruption. The majority of PPC patients recovered with expectant management (83 %), and no deaths were directly related to PPC. CONCLUSIONS: Traumatic PPC is a rare radiographic finding with the majority successfully managed conservatively in a monitored ICU setting. These patients often have severe thoracic injury with concomitant injuries requiring thoracostomy alone; however, emergent surgical intervention may be required when PPC progresses to tension physiology to improve overall survival.

Trial Participation and Outcomes Among English-Speaking and Spanish-Speaking Patients With Appendicitis Randomized to Antibiotics: A Secondary Analysis of the CODA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Spanish-speaking participants are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting study generalizability and contributing to ongoing health inequity. The Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial intentionally included Spanish-speaking participants. Objective: To describe trial participation and compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes among Spanish-speaking and English-speaking participants with acute appendicitis randomized to antibiotics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, a pragmatic randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in adult patients with imaging-confirmed appendicitis enrolled at 25 centers across the US from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. The trial was conducted in English and Spanish. All 776 participants randomized to antibiotics are included in this analysis. The data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through August 24, 2022. Intervention: Randomization to a 10-day course of antibiotics or appendectomy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Trial participation, European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire scores (higher scores indicating a better health status), rate of appendectomy, treatment satisfaction, decisional regret, and days of work missed. Outcomes are also reported for a subset of participants that were recruited from the 5 sites with a large proportion of Spanish-speaking participants. Results: Among eligible patients 476 of 1050 Spanish speakers (45%) and 1076 of 3982 of English speakers (27%) consented, comprising the 1552 participants who underwent 1:1 randomization (mean age, 38.0 years; 976 male [63%]). Of the 776 participants randomized to antibiotics, 238 were Spanish speaking (31%). Among Spanish speakers randomized to antibiotics, the rate of appendectomy was 22% (95% CI, 17%-28%) at 30 days and 45% (95% CI, 38%-52%) at 1 year, while in English speakers, these rates were 20% (95% CI, 16%-23%) at 30 days and 42% (95% CI 38%-47%) at 1 year. Mean EQ-5D scores were 0.93 (95% CI, 0.92-0.95) among Spanish speakers and 0.92 (95% CI, 0.91-0.93) among English speakers. Symptom resolution at 30 days was reported by 68% (95% CI, 61%-74%) of Spanish speakers and 69% (95% CI, 64%-73%) of English speakers. Spanish speakers missed 6.69 (95% CI, 5.51-7.87) days of work on average, while English speakers missed 3.76 (95% CI, 3.20-4.32) days. Presentation to the emergency department or urgent care, hospitalization, treatment dissatisfaction, and decisional regret were low for both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: A high proportion of Spanish speakers participated in the CODA trial. Clinical and most patient-reported outcomes were similar for English- and Spanish-speaking participants treated with antibiotics. Spanish speakers reported more days of missed work. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Blunt Traumatic Abdominal Wall Hernias: An Indicator for Emergent Laparotomy?

BACKGROUND: Traumatic abdominal wall hernias (TAWH) are relatively uncommon; however, the shearing force that results in fascial disruption could indicate an increased risk of visceral injury. The aim of our study was to evaluate whether the presence of a TAWH was associated with intra-abdominal injury requiring emergent laparotomy. METHODS: The trauma registry was queried over an 8-year period (7/2012-7/2020) for adult patients with blunt thoracoabdominal trauma diagnosed with a TAWH. Those patients who were identified with a TAWH and greater than 15 years of age were included in the study. Demographics, mechanism of injury, ISS, BMI, length of stay, TAWH size, type of TAWH repair, and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Overall, 38,749 trauma patients were admitted over the study period, of which 64 (.17%) had a TAWH. Patients were commonly male (n = 42, 65.6%); the median age was 39 years (range 16-79 years) and a mean ISS of 21. Twenty-eight percent had a clinical seatbelt sign. Twenty-seven (42.2%) went emergently to the operating room, the majority for perforated viscus requiring bowel resection (n = 16, 25.0%), and 6 patients (9.4%) who were initially managed nonoperatively underwent delayed laparotomy. Average ventilator days was 14 days, with a mean ICU LOS of 14 days and mean hospital LOS of 18 days. About half of the hernias were repaired at the index operation, 6 of which were repaired primarily and 10 with mesh. CONCLUSION: The presence of a TAWH alone was an indication for immediate laparotomy to evaluate for intra-abdominal injury. In the absence of other indications for exploration, nonoperative management may be safe.

Perception of Treatment Success and Impact on Function with Antibiotics or Appendectomy for Appendicitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial with an Observational Cohort.

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

Analysis of Outcomes Associated With Outpatient Management of Nonoperatively Treated Patients With Appendicitis.

Importance: In the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which found antibiotics to be noninferior, approximately half of participants randomized to receive antibiotics had outpatient management with hospital discharge within 24 hours. If outpatient management is safe, it could increase convenience and decrease health care use and costs. Objective: To assess the use and safety of outpatient management of acute appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study, which is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, included 776 adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis who received antibiotics at 25 US hospitals from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. Exposures: Participants randomized to antibiotics (intravenous then oral) could be discharged from the emergency department based on clinician judgment and prespecified criteria (hemodynamically stable, afebrile, oral intake tolerated, pain controlled, and follow-up confirmed). Outpatient management and hospitalization were defined as discharge within or after 24 hours, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes compared among patients receiving outpatient vs inpatient care included serious adverse events (SAEs), appendectomies, health care encounters, satisfaction, missed workdays at 7 days, and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) score at 30 days. In addition, appendectomy incidence among outpatients and inpatients, unadjusted and adjusted for illness severity, was compared. Results: Among 776 antibiotic-randomized participants, 42 (5.4%) underwent appendectomy within 24 hours and 8 (1.0%) did not receive their first antibiotic dose within 24 hours, leaving 726 (93.6%) comprising the study population (median age, 36 years; range, 18-86 years; 462 [63.6%] male; 437 [60.2%] White). Of these participants, 335 (46.1%; site range, 0-89.2%) were discharged within 24 hours, and 391 (53.9%) were discharged after 24 hours. Over 7 days, SAEs occurred in 0.9 (95% CI, 0.2-2.6) per 100 outpatients and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.9) per 100 inpatients; in the appendicolith subgroup, SAEs occurred in 2.3 (95% CI, 0.3-8.2) per 100 outpatients vs 2.8 (95% CI, 0.6-7.9) per 100 inpatients. During this period, appendectomy occurred in 9.9% (95% CI, 6.9%-13.7%) of outpatients and 14.1% (95% CI, 10.8%-18.0%) of inpatients; adjusted analysis demonstrated a similar difference in incidence (-4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to 0.6). At 30 days, appendectomies occurred in 12.6% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.7%) of outpatients and 19.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-23.4%) of inpatients. Outpatients missed fewer workdays (2.6 days; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9 days) than did inpatients (3.8 days; 95% CI, 3.4-4.3 days) and had similar frequency of return health care visits and high satisfaction and EQ-5D scores. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings support that outpatient antibiotic management is safe for selected adults with acute appendicitis, with no greater risk of complications or appendectomy than hospital care, and should be included in shared decision-making discussions of patient preferences for outcomes associated with nonoperative and operative care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Self-selection vs Randomized Assignment of Treatment for Appendicitis.

Importance: For adults with appendicitis, several randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy. However, it remains unknown how the characteristics of patients in such trials compare with those of patients who select their treatment and whether outcomes differ. Objective: To compare participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study of participants who declined randomization and self-selected treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: The CODA trial was conducted in 25 US medical centers. Participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020; all participants were eligible for at least 1 year of follow-up, with all follow-up ending in 2021. The randomized cohort included 1094 adults with appendicitis; the self-selection cohort included patients who declined participation in the randomized group, of whom 253 selected appendectomy and 257 selected antibiotics. In this secondary analysis, characteristics and outcomes in both self-selection and randomized cohorts are described with an exploratory analysis of cohort status and receipt of appendectomy. Interventions: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics among participants randomized to either appendectomy or antibiotics were compared with those of participants who selected their own treatment. Results: Clinical characteristics were similar across the self-selection cohort (510 patients; mean age, 35.8 years [95% CI, 34.5-37.1]; 218 female [43%; 95% CI, 39%-47%]) and the randomized group (1094 patients; mean age, 38.2 years [95% CI, 37.4-39.0]; 386 female [35%; 95% CI, 33%-38%]). Compared with the randomized group, those in the self-selection cohort were less often Spanish speaking (n = 99 [19%; 95% CI, 16%-23%] vs n = 336 [31%; 95% CI, 28%-34%]), reported more formal education (some college or more, n = 355 [72%; 95% CI, 68%-76%] vs n = 674 [63%; 95% CI, 60%-65%]), and more often had commercial insurance (n = 259 [53%; 95% CI, 48%-57%] vs n = 486 [45%; 95% CI, 42%-48%]). Most outcomes were similar between the self-selection and randomized cohorts. The number of patients undergoing appendectomy by 30 days was 38 (15.3%; 95% CI, 10.7%-19.7%) among those selecting antibiotics and 155 (19.2%; 95% CI, 15.9%-22.5%) in those who were randomized to antibiotics (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, -1.7% to 9.5%). Differences in the rate of appendectomy were primarily observed in the non-appendicolith subgroup. Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of the CODA RCT found substantially similar outcomes across the randomized and self-selection cohorts, suggesting that the randomized trial results are generalizable to the community at large. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment to Prevent Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder After Gunshot Wounds.

Screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an intervention originally developed to prevent and deter substance abuse. Adaptation of the SBIRT model to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may potentially reduce acute stress symptoms after traumatic injury. We conducted a prospective randomized control study of adult patients admitted for gunshot wounds. Patients were randomized to intervention (INT) vs. treatment as usual (TAU) groups. INT received the newly developed SBIRT Intervention for Trauma Patients (SITP)-a 15-minute session with elements of cognitive behavioral therapy techniques. SITP took place during the index hospitalization; both groups had followup at 30 and 90 days at which time a validated PTSD screening tool, PCL-5, was administered. Most of the 46 participants were young (mean age = 30.5y), male (91.3%), and black (86.9%). At three-month follow-up, SBIRT and TAU patients had similar physical healing scores but the SBIRT arm showed reductions in PTSD symptoms.

Data resources for evaluating the economic and financial consequences of surgical care in the United States.

ABSTRACT: Evaluating the relationship between health care costs and quality is paramount in the current health care economic climate, as an understanding of value is needed to drive policy decisions. While many policy analyses are focused on the larger health care system, there is a pressing need for surgically focused economic analyses. Surgical care is costly, and innovative technology is constantly introduced into the operating room, and surgical care impacts patients' short- and long-term physical and economic well-being. Unfortunately, significant knowledge gaps exist regarding the relationship between cost, value, and economic impact of surgical interventions. Despite the plethora of health care data available in the forms of claims databases, discharge databases, and national surveys, no single source of data contains all the information needed for every policy-relevant analysis of surgical care. For this reason, it is important to understand which data are available and what can be accomplished with each of the data sets. In this article, we provide an overview of databases commonly used in surgical health services research. We focus our review on the following five categories of data: governmental claims databases, commercial claims databases, hospital-based clinical databases, state and national discharge databases, and national surveys. For each, we present a summary of the database sampling frame, clinically relevant variables, variables relevant to economic analyses, strengths, weaknesses, and examples of surgically relevant analyses. This review is intended to improve understanding of the current landscape of data available, as well as stimulate novel analyses among surgical populations. Ongoing debates over national health policy reforms may shape the delivery of surgical care for decades to come. Appropriate use of available data resources can improve our understanding of the economic impact of surgical care on our health care system and our patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Regular Review, Level V.

Patient Factors Associated With Appendectomy Within 30 Days of Initiating Antibiotic Treatment for Appendicitis.

IMPORTANCE: Use of antibiotics for the treatment of appendicitis is safe and has been found to be noninferior to appendectomy based on self-reported health status at 30 days. Identifying patient characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of appendectomy within 30 days in those who initiate antibiotics could support more individualized decision-making. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient factors associated with undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics for appendicitis. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cohort study using data from the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial, characteristics among patients who initiated antibiotics were compared between those who did and did not undergo appendectomy within 30 days. The study was conducted at 25 US medical centers; participants were enrolled between May 3, 2016, and February 5, 2020. A total of 1552 participants with acute appendicitis were randomized to antibiotics (776 participants) or appendectomy (776 participants). Data were analyzed from September 2020 to July 2021. EXPOSURES: Appendectomy vs antibiotics. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Conditional logistic regression models were fit to estimate associations between specific patient factors and the odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days after initiating antibiotics. A sensitivity analysis was performed excluding participants who underwent appendectomy within 30 days for nonclinical reasons. RESULTS: Of 776 participants initiating antibiotics (mean [SD] age, 38.3 [13.4] years; 286 [37%] women and 490 [63%] men), 735 participants had 30-day outcomes, including 154 participants (21%) who underwent appendectomy within 30 days. After adjustment for other factors, female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.01-2.31), radiographic finding of wider appendiceal diameter (OR per 1-mm increase, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00-1.18), and presence of appendicolith (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.28-3.10) were associated with increased odds of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days. Characteristics that are often associated with increased risk of complications (eg, advanced age, comorbid conditions) and those clinicians often use to describe appendicitis severity (eg, fever: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.82-1.98) were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. The sensitivity analysis limited to appendectomies performed for clinical reasons provided similar results regarding appendicolith (adjusted OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.49-3.91). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cohort study found that presence of an appendicolith was associated with a nearly 2-fold increased risk of undergoing appendectomy within 30 days of initiating antibiotics. Clinical characteristics often used to describe severity of appendicitis were not associated with odds of 30-day appendectomy. This information may help guide more individualized decision-making for people with appendicitis.

Weight-based enoxaparin with anti-factor Xa assay-based dose adjustment for venous thromboembolic event prophylaxis in adult trauma patients results in improved prophylactic range targeting.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common morbidity in trauma patients. Standard VTE chemoprophylaxis is often inadequate. We hypothesized that weight-based dosing would result in appropriate prophylaxis more reliably than fixed dosing. METHODS: All patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center over a 6-month period were included unless contra-indications for VTE prophylaxis existed. A prospective adjusted-dosing group was compared to a retrospective uniform-dosing group. The adjusted-dosing approach consisted of initial weight-based dosing of 0.5 mg/kg subcutaneously (subQ) every 12 h (q12h). Peak anti-factor Xa was measured. Patients outside of the prophylactic range had their dose adjusted by ± 10 mg. The uniform-dosing group received 30 mg subQ q12h, without adjustments. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were included: 44 in the retrospective control cohort and 40 in the prospective experimental cohort. More patients were sub-prophylactically dosed in the uniform-dosing group relative to the adjusted-dosing group (25% vs 5%, p = 0.03). There was no difference in overall prophylactic range targeting, because the supra-prophylactically dosed patients in the adjusted-dosing group eliminated the effect (p = 0.173). However, after a single dose adjustment, zero patients were outside of prophylactic range (25% versus 0%, RR = infinite, p = 0.003). In the uniform-dosing group, anti-Xa level correlated with body surface area (BSA; R2 = 0.33, p < 0.0001) and weight (R2 = 0.26, p = 0.0005). Weight-based dosing both pre- and post-readjustment normalized the correlation of anti-Xa with BSA (R2 = 0.07, p = 0.1) and weight (R2 = 0.07, p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Weight-based VTE prophylaxis with anti-Xa-based dose adjustment improves prophylactic range targeting relative to uniform dosing and eliminates variances secondary to BSA and weight in trauma patients.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

Subway-Related Trauma: An Urban Public Health Issue with a High Case-Fatality Rate.

BACKGROUND: Between 1990 and 2003, there were 668 subway-related fatalities in New York City. However, subway-related trauma remains an understudied area of injury-related morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the injuries and events leading up to the injuries of all patients admitted after subway-related trauma. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective case series of subway-related trauma at a Level I trauma center from 2001 to 2016. Descriptive epidemiology of patient demographics, incident details, injuries, and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Over 15 years, 254 patients were admitted for subway-related trauma. The mean (standard error of the mean) age was 41 (1.0) years, 80% were male (95% confidence interval [CI] 74-84%) and median Injury Severity Score was 14 (interquartile range [IQR] 5-24). The overall case-fatality rate was 10% (95% CI 7-15%). The most common injuries were long-bone fractures, intracranial hemorrhage, and traumatic amputations. Median length of stay was 6 days (IQR 1-18 days). Thirty-seven percent of patients required surgical intervention. At the time of injury, 55% of patients (95% CI 49-61%) had a positive urine drug or alcohol screen, 16% (95% CI 12-21%) were attempting suicide, and 39% (95% CI 33-45%) had a history of psychiatric illness. CONCLUSIONS: Subway-related trauma is associated with a high case-fatality rate. Alcohol or drug intoxication and psychiatric illness can increase the risk of this type of injury.

Functional outcomes after inpatient rehabilitation for trauma-improved but unable to return home.

BACKGROUND: Twenty-five percent of trauma patients are discharged to postacute care, indicating a loss of physical function and need for rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to quantify the functional improvements in trauma patients discharged from inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) and identify predictors of improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of trauma patients aged ≥ 18 years were admitted to an IRF after discharge from a level-1 trauma center. Data included demographics, injury characteristics, hospital, and IRF course. The functional independence measure (FIM) was used to measure change in physical and cognitive function. RESULTS: There were 245 patients with a mean age of 55.8 years and mean injury severity score (ISS) of 14.7. Fall was the leading mechanism of injury (45.7%). On IRF admission, 50.7% of patients required moderate or greater assistance. On discharge, the mean intraindividual change in FIM score was 29.9; 85.4% of the patients improved by ≥1 level of functioning. Before injury, 99.6% of patients were living at home, but only 56.0% were discharged home from the IRF, despite 81.8% requiring minimal assistance at most (23.5% to skilled nursing; 19.7% readmitted). Increasing age and lower ISS were associated with less FIM improvement, and increasing ISS was associated with increased FIM improvement. CONCLUSIONS: More than 80% of the trauma patients experienced meaningful functional improvements during IRF admission. However, only half were discharged home, and a quarter required further institutional care. Further research is needed to identify the additional impediments to return to preinjury functioning.

Prolonged length of stay in delayed cholecystectomy is not due to intraoperative or postoperative contributors.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have reported that same-day laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis is superior to delayed elective cholecystectomy. Although this practice is ideal, it requires significant hospital resources, particularly for an underprivileged inner-city population at a large, municipal hospital. We sought to evaluate the implementation of same-day laparoscopic cholecystectomy in a large, municipal hospital and assess the possible benefits of decreasing preoperative length of stay (LOS), particularly its effect on operative time and length of stay in patients with acute cholecystitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients treated for symptomatic gallstone disease between September 2012 and November 2013. Medical records were reviewed, and relevant data points were collected. Univariate and multivariate regressions were performed to assess the correlation between time to operation (<36 h [no delay] or >36 h [delay]) and the main outcomes (operative time and total length of stay). Inclusion criteria were patients age ≥18 y who underwent same-admission cholecystectomy and had a diagnosis of cholecystitis on pathology. Eighty-eight patients met all inclusion criteria. RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) preoperative LOS was 76.2 (±48.6) h, the mean operative time was 2.3 (±1.1) h, and the mean postoperative LOS was 60.3 (±60.1) h. The average total LOS was 136 (±79.8) h. Operative times and postoperative LOS were similar for patients in the delay and no delay groups. Patients with >36 h wait before surgery had a total length of stay twice as long as patients with <36 h wait (152 versus 83.3 h; P = 0.0005). These findings remained significant when adjusted for age, sex, radiologic findings, number of preoperative tests, and pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Increased preoperative LOS is not associated with a significant increase in operative time. However, it was associated with significantly increased length of stay. Further analysis is needed to explore the potential cost savings of decreasing preoperative LOS.

Traumatic injury in the United States: In-patient epidemiology 2000-2011.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a leading cause of death and disability in the United States (US). This analysis describes trends and annual changes in in-hospital trauma morbidity and mortality; evaluates changes in age and gender specific outcomes, diagnoses, causes of injury, injury severity and surgical procedures performed; and examines the role of teaching hospitals and Level 1 trauma centres in the care of severely injured patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective descriptive and analytic epidemiologic study of an inpatient database representing 20,659,684 traumatic injury discharges from US hospitals between 2000 and 2011. The main outcomes and measures were survey-adjusted counts, proportions, means, standard errors, and 95% confidence intervals. We plotted time series of yearly data with overlying loess smoothing, created tables of proportions of common injuries and surgical procedures, and conducted survey-adjusted logistic regression analysis for the effect of year on the odds of in-hospital death with control variables for age, gender, weekday vs. weekend admission, trauma-centre status, teaching-hospital status, injury severity and Charlson index score. RESULTS: The mean age of a person discharged from a US hospital with a trauma diagnosis increased from 54.08 (s.e.=0.71) in 2000 to 59.58 (s.e.=0.79) in 2011. Persons age 45-64 were the only age group to experience increasing rates of hospital discharges for trauma. The proportion of trauma discharges with a Charlson Comorbidity Index score greater than or equal to 3 nearly tripled from 0.048 (s.e.=0.0015) of all traumatic injury discharges in 2000 to 0.139 (s.e.=0.005) in 2011. The proportion of patients with traumatic injury classified as severe increased from 22% of all trauma discharges in 2000 (95% CI 21, 24) to 28% in 2011 (95% CI 26, 30). Level 1 trauma centres accounted for approximately 3.3% of hospitals. The proportion of severely injured trauma discharges from Level 1 trauma centres was 39.4% (95% CI 36.8, 42.1). Falls, followed by motor-vehicle crashes, were the most common causes of all injuries. The total cost of trauma-related inpatient care between 2001 and 2011 in the US was $240.7 billion (95% CI 231.0, 250.5). Annual total US inpatient trauma-related hospital costs increased each year between 2001 and 2011, more than doubling from $12.0 billion (95% CI 10.5, 13.4) in 2001 to 29.1 billion (95% CI 25.2, 32.9) in 2011. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma, which has traditionally been viewed as a predicament of the young, is increasingly a disease of the old. The strain of managing the progressively complex and costly care associated with this shift rests with a small number of trauma centres. Optimal care of injured patients requires a reappraisal of the resources required to effectively provide it given a mounting burden.

The Effect of Sharrows, Painted Bicycle Lanes and Physically Protected Paths on the Severity of Bicycle Injuries Caused by Motor Vehicles.

We conducted individual and ecologic analyses of prospectively collected data from 839 injured bicyclists who collided with motorized vehicles and presented to Bellevue Hospital, an urban Level-1 trauma center in New York City, from December 2008 to August 2014. Variables included demographics, scene information, rider behaviors, bicycle route availability, and whether the collision occurred before the road segment was converted to a bicycle route. We used negative binomial modeling to assess the risk of injury occurrence following bicycle path or lane implementation. We dichotomized U.S. National Trauma Data Bank Injury Severity Scores (ISS) into none/mild (0-8) versus moderate, severe, or critical (>8) and used adjusted multivariable logistic regression to model the association of ISS with collision proximity to sharrows (i.e., bicycle lanes designated for sharing with cars), painted bicycle lanes, or physically protected paths. Negative binomial modeling of monthly counts, while adjusting for pedestrian activity, revealed that physically protected paths were associated with 23% fewer injuries. Painted bicycle lanes reduced injury risk by nearly 90% (IDR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02-0.33). Holding all else equal, compared to no bicycle route, a bicycle injury nearby sharrows was nearly twice as likely to be moderate, severe, or critical (adjusted odds ratio 1.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-4.15). Painted bicycle lanes and physically protected paths were 1.52 (95% CI 0.85-2.71) and 1.66 (95% CI 0.85-3.22) times as likely to be associated with more than mild injury respectively.