Pilot study: advanced haemodynamic monitoring after acute spinal cord injury-Keep the pressure up?

BACKGROUND: Although the use of vasopressors to maintain haemodynamic goals after acute spinal cord injury (SCI) is still recommended, evidence regarding the target values and possible risks of this practice is limited, and data on haemodynamic parameters unaffected by catecholamines are rare. In this pilot study, we show the haemodynamic profile of patients with acute SCI mainly unaffected by vasopressor use and other factors that influence the cardiovascular system. METHODS: From March 2018 to March 2020, we conducted a prospective, single-centre pilot study of 30 patients with acute SCI. Factors that could affect the cardiocirculatory system other than SCI (sepsis, pre-existing heart disease or multiple trauma) led to exclusion. A total of 417 measurements were performed using the PiCCO™ system. RESULTS: The mean systemic vascular resistance index (SVRI, 1447.23 ± 324.71 dyn*s*cm-5*m2), mean central venous pressure (CVP, 10.69 ± 3.16) and mean global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI, 801.79 ± 158.95 ml/m2) deviated from the reference range, while the mean cardiac index (CI), mean stroke volume index (SVI), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and mean heart rate (HR) were within the reference range, as indicated in the literature. A mixed model analysis showed a significant negative relationship between norepinephrine treatment and MAP (83.97 vs. 73.69 mmHg, p < 0.001), SVRI (1463.40 vs. 1332.14 dyn*s*cm-5*m2, p = 0.001) and GEDVI (808.89 vs. 759.39 ml/m2, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: These findings could lead to an adaptation of the target range for SVRI and MAP in patients with acute SCI and therefore reduce the use of vasopressors.

Keeping it simple: the value of mortality prediction after trauma with basic indices like the Reverse Shock Index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale.

BACKGROUND: Identification of trauma patients at significant risk of death in the prehospital setting is challenging. The prediction probability of basic indices like vital signs, Shock Index (SI), SI multiplied by age (SIA) or the GCS is limited and more complex scores are not feasible on-scene. The Reverse SI multiplied by GCS score (rSIG) has been proposed as a triage tool to identify trauma patients with an increased risk of dying at EDs. Age adjustment (rSIG/A) displayed no advantage.We aim to (1) validate the accuracy of the rSIG in predicting death or early transfusion in a large trauma registry population, and (2) determine if the rSIG is valid for evaluation of trauma patients in the prehospital setting. METHODS: 70 829 trauma patients were retrieved from the TraumaRegister DGU database (time period between 2008 and 2017). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated to measure the ability of SI, SIA, rSIG and rSIG divided by age (rSIG/A) to predict in-hospital mortality from data at the time of hospital arrival and solely from prehospital data. RESULTS: The rSIG at time of hospital admission was not sufficiently predictive for clinical decision-making. However, rSIG calculated solely from prehospital data accurately predicted risk of death. Using prehospital data, the AUROC for mortality of rSIG/A was the highest (0.85; CI: 0.85 to 0.86), followed by rSIG (0.76; CI: 0.75 to 0.77), SIA (0.71; CI: 0.70 to 0.71) and SI (0.48; CI: 0.47 to 0.49). CONCLUSION: The prehospital rSIG/A can be a useful adjunct for the prehospital evaluation of trauma patients and their allocation to trauma centres or trauma team activation. However, we could not confirm that the rSIG at hospital admission is a reliable tool for risk stratification.

Yes- mind the gap!

We totally agree with Deana and Colleagues that missing intermediate care 1) might be an explanation for unexpected unfavorable outcome and 2) strengthening of intermediate care has the potential to lower this high rate of unfavorable outcome after ICU discharge. Yes- mind the gap!

Mortality in severely injured patients: nearly one of five non-survivors have been already discharged alive from ICU.

BACKGROUND: Most trauma patients admitted to the hospital alive and die later on, decease during the initial care in the emergency department or the intensive care unit (ICU). However, a number of patients pass away after having been discharged from the ICU during the initial hospital stay. On first sight these cases could be seen as "failure to rescue" of potentially salvageable patients. A low rate of such patients might be a potential indicator of quality for trauma care on ICUs and surgical wards. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of the TraumaRegister DGU® with data from 2015 to 2017. Patients that died during the initial ICU stay were compared to those who were discharged from the initial ICU stay for at least 24 h but died later on. RESULTS: A total of 82,313 trauma patients were included in the TraumaRegister DGU®. In total, 6576 patients (8.0%) died during their hospital stay. Out of those, 5481 were admitted to the ICU alive and 972 patients (17.7%) were discharged from ICU and died later on. Those were older (mean age: 77 vs. 68 years), less severely injured (mean ISS: 23.1 vs. 30.0 points) and had a longer mean ICU length of stay (10 vs. 6 days). A limitation of life-sustaining therapy due to a documented living will was present in 46.1% of all patients who died during their initial ICU stay and in 59.9% of patients who died after discharge from their initial ICU stay. CONCLUSIONS: 17.7% of all non-surviving severely injured trauma patients died within the hospital after discharge from their initial ICU treatment. Their death can partially be explained by a limitation of therapy due to a living will. In conclusion, the rate of such late deaths may partially represent patients that died of potentially avoidable or treatable complications.