Emergency Anesthesiology Encounters, Care Practices, and Outcomes for Patients with Firearm Injuries: A 9-Year Single-Center US Level 1 Trauma Experience.

BACKGROUND: Firearm injuries cause significant morbidity and mortality. Patients with firearm injuries require urgent/emergency operative procedures but the literature incompletely describes how anesthesia care and outcomes differ between high acuity trauma patients with and without firearm injuries. Our objective was to examine anesthesia care, resource utilization, and outcomes of patients with acute firearm injuries compared to nonfirearm injuries. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients ≥18 years admitted to a regional Level 1 trauma center between 2014 and 2022 who required operative management within the first 2 hours of hospital arrival. We examined clinical characteristics, anesthesiology care practices, and intra- and postoperative outcomes of patients with firearm injuries compared to patients with nonfirearm injuries. RESULTS: Over the 9-year study period, firearm injuries accounted for the largest yearly average increase in trauma admissions (firearm 10.1%, blunt 3.2%, other 1.3%, motor-vehicle crash 0.9%). Emergency anesthesiology care within 2 hours of arrival was delivered to 4.7% of injured patients (2124; 541 firearm [25.4%] and 1583 [74.5%] nonfirearm). Patients with firearm injuries were younger (30 [23-40] years vs 41 [29-56] years; P < .0001), male (90% vs 75%; P < .0001), direct admissions from scene (78% vs 62%; P < .0001), had less polytrauma (10% vs 22%; P < .0001), arrived after hours (73% vs 63%; P < .0001), and received earlier anesthesiology care (0.4 [0.3-0.7] vs 0.9 [0.5-1.5] hours after arrival; P < .0001). Patients with firearm injuries more often received invasive arterial (83% vs 77%; P < .0001) and central venous (14% vs 10%; P = .02) cannulation, blood products (3 [0-11] vs 0 [0-7] units; P < .0001), tranexamic acid (30% vs 22%; P < .001), as well as had higher estimated blood loss (500 [200-1588] mL vs 300 [100-1000] mL; P < .0001), and were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) more frequently (83% vs 77%; P < .001) than patients with nonfirearm injuries. Intraoperative mortality was comparable (6% firearm vs 4% nonfirearm) but postoperative mortality was lower for patients with firearm injuries who survived the intraoperative course (6% vs 14%; P < .0001). Comparatively, more patients with firearm injuries were discharged to home, or to jail (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Over the study period, anesthesiologists increasingly cared for patients with firearm injuries, who often present outside of daytime hours and require urgent operative intervention. Operating room readiness and high-intensity resuscitation capacity, such as access to hemostatic control measures, are critical to achieving intraoperative survival and favorable postoperative outcomes, particularly for patients with firearm injuries.

Ultramassive Transfusion for Trauma in the Age of Hemostatic Resuscitation: A Retrospective Single-Center Cohort From a Large US Level-1 Trauma Center, 2011-2021.

BACKGROUND: Uncontrolled bleeding is a leading cause of death in trauma. In the last 40 years, ultramassive transfusion (UMT; ≥20 units of red blood cells [RBCs]/24 hours) for trauma has been associated with 50% to 80% mortality; the question remains as to whether the increasing number of units transfused in urgent resuscitation is a marker of futility. We asked whether the frequency and outcomes of UMT have changed in the era of hemostatic resuscitation. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all UMTs in the first 24 hours of care over an 11-year period at a major US level-1 adult and pediatric trauma center. UMT patients were identified, and a dataset was built by linking blood bank and trauma registry data, then reviewing individual electronic health records. Success in achieving hemostatic proportions of blood products was estimated as (units of plasma + apheresis-platelets-in-plasma + cryoprecipitate-pools + whole blood]/[all units given] ≥0.5. Demographics, injury type (blunt or penetrating), severity (Injury Severity Score [ISS]), severity pattern (Abbreviated Injury Scale score for head [AIS-Head] ≥4), admitting laboratory, transfusion, selected emergency department interventions, and discharge status were assessed using χ2 tests of categorical association, the Student t-test of means, and multivariable logistic regression. P <.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Among 66,734 trauma admissions from April 6, 2011 to December 31, 2021, we identified 6288 (9.4%) who received any blood products in the first 24 hours, 159 of whom received UMT (0.23%; 154 aged 18-90 + 5 aged 9-17), 81% in hemostatic proportions. Overall mortality was 65% (n = 103); mean ISS = 40; median time to death, 6.1 hours. In univariate analyses, death was not associated with age, sex, or more RBC units transfused beyond 20 but was associated with blunt injury, increasing injury severity, severe head injury, and failure to receive hemostatic blood product ratios. Mortality was also associated with decreased pH and evidence of coagulopathy at admission, especially hypofibrinogenemia. Multivariable logistic regression showed severe head injury, admission hypofibrinogenemia and not receiving a hemostatic resuscitation proportion of blood products as independently associated with death. CONCLUSIONS: One in 420 acute trauma patients at our center received UMT, a historically low rate. A third of these patients lived, and UMT was not itself a marker of futility. Early identification of coagulopathy was possible, and failure to give blood components in hemostatic ratios was associated with excess mortality.

Advances in hemorrhage control resuscitation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite significant advances in trauma management over the last twenty years, uncontrolled hemorrhage remains the leading cause of preventable death in trauma. We review recent changes affecting hemorrhage control resuscitation. RECENT FINDINGS: Early blood product usage has become well established as a standard of care in trauma hemorrhage control. To enable this, low titer group A liquid plasma and group O whole blood are increasingly utilized. Single donor apheresis platelets have now replaced pooled donor platelets in the USA and are often pathogen reduced, which has implications for trauma resuscitation. Further work is examining timing and dosing of tranexamic acid and the debate in factor concentrate usage in trauma induced coagulopathy continues to evolve. The 'Stop the bleed' campaign has highlighted how important the use of hemostatic dressings are in hemorrhage control, as too is the expanded use of endovascular aortic occlusion. We highlight the ongoing research into desmopressin use and the undetermined significance of ionized calcium levels in trauma. Finally, we discuss our own hospital experience with coagulation testing and the paucity of evidence of improved outcomes with viscoelastic testing. SUMMARY: Improving trauma coagulopathy diagnostics and hemorrhage control are vital if we are to decrease the mortality associated with trauma.