And Miles to Go Before We Sleep: EAST Diversity and Inclusivity Progress and Remaining Challenges.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the diversity, equity, and inclusion landscape in academic trauma surgery and the EAST organization. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In 2019, the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) surveyed its members on equity and inclusion in the #EAST4ALL survey and assessed leadership representation. We hypothesized that women and surgeons of color (SOC) are underrepresented as EAST members and leaders. METHODS: Survey responses were analyzed post-hoc for representation of females and SOC in academic appointments and leadership, EAST committees, and the EAST board, and compared to the overall respondent cohort. EAST membership and board demographics were compared to demographic data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. RESULTS: Of 306 respondents, 37.4% identified as female and 23.5% as SOC. There were no significant differences in female and SOC representation in academic appointments and EAST committees compared to their male and white counterparts. In academic leadership, females were underrepresented ( P < 0.0001), whereas SOC were not ( P = 0.08). Both females and SOC were underrepresented in EAST board membership ( P = 0.002 and P = 0.043, respectively). Of EAST's 33 presidents, 3 have been white women (9%), 2 have been Black, non-African American men (6%), and 28 (85%) have been white men. When compared to 2017 AAMC data, women are well-represented in EAST's 2020 membership ( P < 0.0001) and proportionally represented on EAST's 2019-2020 board ( P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The #EAST4ALL survey suggests that women and SOC may be underrepresented as leaders in academic trauma surgery. However, lack of high-quality demographic data makes evaluating representation of structurally marginalized groups challenging. National trauma organizations should elicit data from their members to re-assess and promote the diversity landscape in trauma surgery.

Helicopters improve survival in seriously injured patients requiring interfacility transfer for definitive care.

BACKGROUND: Helicopter transport (HT) is frequently used for interfacility transfer of injured patients to a trauma center. The benefits of HT over ground transport (GT) in this setting are unclear. By using a national sample, the objective of this study was to assess whether HT impacted outcomes following interfacility transfer of trauma patients. METHODS: Patients transferred by HT or GT in 2007 were identified using the National Trauma Databank (version 8). Injury severity, resource utilization, and survival to discharge were compared. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine whether transport modality was a predictor of survival after adjusting for covariates. Regression analysis was repeated in subgroups with Injury Severity Score (ISS)≤15 and ISS>15. RESULTS: There were 74,779 patients transported by helicopter (20%) or ground (80%). Mean ISS was higher in patients transported by helicopter (17±11 vs. 12±9; p<0.01) as was the proportion with ISS>15 (49% vs. 28%; odds ratio [OR], 2.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.43-2.63). Patients transported by helicopter had higher rates of intensive care unit admission (54% vs. 29%; OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 2.75-2.96), had shorter transport time (61±55 minutes vs. 98±71 minutes; p<0.01), and had shorter overall prehospital time (135±86 minutes vs. 202±132 minutes; p<0.01). HT was not a predictor of survival overall or in patients with ISS≤15. In patients with ISS>15, HT was a predictor of survival (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02-1.17; p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients transported by helicopter were more severely injured and required more hospital resources than patients transported by ground. HT offered shorter transport and overall prehospital times. For patients with ISS>15, HT was a predictor of survival. These findings should be considered when developing interfacility transfer policies for patients with severe injuries.

Mechanism of injury and special consideration criteria still matter: an evaluation of the National Trauma Triage Protocol.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Disease Control recently updated the National Trauma Triage Protocol. This field triage algorithm guides emergency medical service providers through four decision steps (physiologic [PHY], anatomic [ANA], mechanism, and special considerations) to identify patients who would benefit from trauma center care. The study objective was to analyze whether trauma center need (TCN) was accurately predicted solely by the PHY and ANA criteria using national data. METHODS: Trauma patients aged 18 years and older were identified in the NTDB (2002-2006). PHY data and ANA injuries (International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision codes) were collected. TCN was defined as Injury Severity Score (ISS)>15, intensive care unit admission, or need for urgent surgery. Test characteristics were calculated according to steps in the triage algorithm. Logistic regression was performed to determine independent association of criteria with outcomes. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed for each model. RESULTS: A total of 1,086,764 subjects were identified. Sensitivity of PHY criteria was highest for ISS>15 (42%) and of ANA criteria for urgent surgery (37%). By using PHY and ANA steps, sensitivity was highest (56%) and undertriage lowest (45%) for ISS>15. Undertriage for TCN based on actual treating trauma center level was 11%. CONCLUSION: Current PHY and ANA criteria are highly specific for TCN but result in a high degree of undertriage when applied independently. This implies that additional factors such as mechanism of injury and the special considerations included in the Centers for Disease Control decision algorithm contribute significantly to the effectiveness of this field triage tool.

Helicopters and the civilian trauma system: national utilization patterns demonstrate improved outcomes after traumatic injury.

BACKGROUND: The role of helicopter transport (HT) in civilian trauma care remains controversial. The objective of this study was to compare patient outcomes after transport from the scene of injury by HT and ground transport using a national patient sample. METHODS: Patients transported from the scene of injury by HT or ground transport in 2007 were identified using the National Trauma Databank version 8. Injury severity, utilization of hospital resources, and outcomes were compared. Stepwise logistic regression was used to determine whether transport modality was a predictor of survival or discharge to home after adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: There were 258,387 patients transported by helicopter (16%) or ground (84%). Mean Injury Severity Score was higher in HT patients (15.9 ± 12.3 vs. 10.2 ± 9.5, p < 0.01), as was the percentage of patients with Injury Severity Score >15 (42.6% vs. 20.8%; odds ratio [OR], 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.76-2.89). HT patients had higher rates of intensive care unit admission (43.5% vs. 22.9%; OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.53-2.64) and mechanical ventilation (20.8% vs. 7.4%; OR, 3.30; 95% CI, 3.21-3.40). HT was a predictor of survival (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.17-1.27) and discharge to home (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.07) after adjustment for covariates. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients transported by helicopter were more severely injured, had longer transport times, and required more hospital resources than those transported by ground. Despite this, HT patients were more likely to survive and were more likely to be discharged home after treatment when compared with those transported by ground. Despite concerns regarding helicopter utilization in the civilian setting, this study shows that HT has merit and impacts outcome.

Trauma center designation correlates with functional independence after severe but not moderate traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: The mortality of traumatic brain injury (TBI) continues to decline, emphasizing functional outcomes. Trauma center designation has been linked to survival after TBI, but the impact on functional outcomes is unclear. The objective was to determine whether trauma center designation influenced functional outcomes after moderate and severe TBI. METHODS: Trauma subjects presenting to an American College of Surgeons (ACS) Level I or II trauma center with a Glasgow Coma Score (GCS)

Prehospital spinal immobilization does not appear to be beneficial and may complicate care following gunshot injury to the torso.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital spinal immobilization (PHSI) is routinely applied to patients sustaining torso gunshot wounds (GSW). Our objective was to evaluate the potential benefit of PHSI after torso GSW versus the potential to interfere with other critical aspects of care. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all patients with torso GSW in the Strong Memorial Hospital (SMH) trauma registry during a 41-month period and all patients with GSW in the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) during a 60-month period was conducted. PHSI was considered potentially beneficial in patients with spine fractures requiring surgical stabilization in the absence of spinal cord injury (SCI). RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-seven subjects from SMH and 75,210 from NTDB were included. A total of 9.2% of SMH subjects and 4.3% of NTDB subjects had spine injury, with 51.5% of SMH subjects and 32.3% of NTDB subjects having SCI. No SMH subject had an unstable spine fracture requiring surgical stabilization without complete neurologic injury. No subjects with SCI improved or worsened, and none developed a new deficit. Twenty-six NTDB subjects (0.03%) had spine fractures requiring stabilization in the absence of SCI. Emergent intubation was required in 40.6% of SMH subjects and 33.8% of NTDB subjects. Emergent surgical intervention was required in 54.5% of SMH subjects and 43% of NTDB subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the benefit of PHSI in patients with torso GSW remains unproven, despite a potential to interfere with emergent care in this patient population. Large prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of PHSI after torso GSW.

Does the need for noncardiac surgery during ventricular assist device therapy impact clinical outcome?

BACKGROUND: The role of the ventricular assist device (VAD) in the management of heart failure is expanding. Despite its success, the clinical course for patients requiring noncardiac surgery (NCS) during VAD support is not well described. The objective of this study was to identify VAD patients requiring NCS (+NCS) and compare outcomes with those not requiring NCS (-NCS). METHODS: Patients undergoing VAD implant from 2000 to 2007 were reviewed. NCS procedures, survival, and complications were collected. Survival at 1 year from implant, overall survival at the study conclusion, survival time from implant, and outcome of VAD therapy were compared between groups. RESULTS: We enrolled 142 subjects. Demographics did not differ between groups. Twenty-five subjects (18%) underwent 27 NCS procedures. Perioperative survival was 100% and 28-day survival was 64%. Survival to discharge was 56%. Bleeding occurred in 48%. Infection occurred in 33%. Estimated blood loss was 355 mL, and the international normalized ratio at time of NCS was 1.9. Laparoscopy was performed in 3 cases. There was no difference in 1-year survival (59% vs 54%), survival at study conclusion (44% vs 46%) or survival time (517 vs 523 days) between +NCS subjects and -NCS subjects. There were similar causes of death in both groups. The +NCS group was on VAD support longer (245 vs 87 days; P < .01), and less likely to undergo heart transplantation (12% vs 35%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: NCS is not uncommon during VAD therapy. Bleeding and infection were common complications. Despite this, NCS seems to be feasible and safe and does not seem to increase mortality in the VAD population.