Pexy of intraperitoneal LVAD driveline to relieve small bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation is a lifesaving intervention in advanced heart failure. However, LVAD is not without complication. In this case, an inadvertent intraperitoneal driveline caused small bowel obstruction, subsequently requiring pexy of the driveline to the abdominal wall to avoid future complications. CASE PRESENTATION: A 37-year-old male with worsening, nonischemic, dilated cardiomyopathy underwent LVAD implantation. Postoperative day (POD) 15 he developed small bowel obstruction, and abdominal exploration showed transition point at an inadvertently placed intraperitoneal LVAD driveline. The patient was LVAD-dependent precluding removal, so the driveline was secured to the anterior abdominal wall. He subsequently improved and was discharged. CONCLUSIONS: While LVAD is increasingly common for heart failure patients, the tunneled driveline may inadvertently enter the peritoneal cavity where it can cause significant morbidity. In this case, we propose securing the driveline to the abdominal wall to prevent complications when LVAD removal is not an option.

Examining the Definition of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in the Trauma Setting: A Single-Center Analysis.

Background: Ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined by the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (ACS TQIP) using laboratory findings, pathophysiologic signs/symptoms, and imaging criteria. However, many critically ill trauma patients meet the non-specific laboratory and sign/symptom thresholds for VAP, so the TQIP designation of VAP depends heavily upon imaging evidence. We hypothesized that physician opinions widely vary regarding chest radiograph findings significant for VAP. Patients and Methods: The TQIP Spring 2021 Benchmark Report (BR) was used to identify 14 patients with VAP at an academic Level 1 Trauma Center. Critically ill trauma patients (n = 7) who spent at least four days intubated and met TQIP's laboratory and sign/symptom thresholds for VAP but did not appear as VAPs on the BR comprised the control group. For each deidentified patient, four successive chest radiographic images were compiled and arranged chronologically. Cases and controls were randomly arranged in digital format. Blinded physicians (n = 27) were asked to identify patients with VAP based solely on imaging evidence. Results: Radiographic evidence of VAP was highly subjective (Krippendorff α = 0.134). Among physicians of the same job description, inter-rater reliability remained low (α = 0.137 for trauma attending physicians; α = 0.141 for trauma fellows; α = 0.271 for radiologists). When majority judgment was compared to the TQIP BR, there was disagreement between the two tests (Cohen κ = -0.071; sensitivity, 64.3%; specificity, 28.6%). Conclusions: Current definitions of VAP rely on subjective imaging interpretation and ignore the reality that there are numerous explanations for opacities on CXR. The inconsistency of physicians' imaging interpretation and protean physiologic findings for VAP in trauma patients should preclude the current definition of VAP from being used as a quality improvement metric in TQIP.

Acute Kidney Injury Risk in Patients Treated with Vancomycin Combined with Meropenem or Cefepime.

Background: No previous studies have determined the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) in trauma patients treated with vancomycin + meropenem (VM) versus vancomycin + cefepime (VC). The purpose of this study was to fill this gap. Methods: A series of 99 patients admitted to an American College of Surgeons-verified level 1 trauma center over a two-year period who received VC or VM for >48 hours were reviewed retrospectively. Exclusion criteria were existing renal dysfunction or on renal replacement therapy. The primary outcome was AKI as defined by a rise in serum creatinine (SCr) to 1.5 times baseline. Multi-variable analysis was performed to control for factors associated with AKI (age, obesity, gender, length of stay [LOS], nephrotoxic agent(s), and baseline SCr), with significance defined as p < 0.05. Results: The study population was 50 ± 19 years old, 76% male, with a median LOS of 21 [range 15-39] days, and baseline SCr of 0.9 ± 0.2 mg/dL. Antibiotics, diabetes mellitus, and Injury Severity Score were independent predictors of AKI (odds ratio [OR] 4.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-12; OR 9.3; 95% CI 1-27; OR 1.2; 95% CI 1.023-1.985, respectively). The incidence of AKI was higher with VM than VC (10/26 [38%] versus 14/73 [19.1%]; p = 0.049). Conclusions: The renal toxicity of vancomycin is potentiated by meropenem relative to cefepime in trauma patients. We recommend caution when initiating vancomycin combination therapy, particularly with meropenem.

Same-Hospital Re-Admission Rate Is Not Reliable for Measuring Post-Operative Infection-Related Re-Admission.

BACKGROUND: Post-operative infections cause morbidity, consume resources, and are an important quality measure in assessing and comparing hospitals. Commonly used metrics do not account for re-admission to a different hospital. The Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) tracks re-admissions across United States (US) hospitals. Infection-related re-admission across US hospitals has not been studied previously. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The 2013 NRD was queried for admissions with a primary International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 9th revision, Clinical Modification code for the most frequently performed operations. Non-elective all-cause, infection-related, and different hospital 30-day re-admission rates were calculated, using All Patient Refined Diagnosis Related Groups codes. Multi-variable logistic regression identified risk factors for re-admission. RESULTS: Of 826,836 surviving to discharge, 39,281 (4.8%) had an unplanned re-admission within 30 days, occurring at a different hospital 20.5% of the time. The most common reason for re-admission was infection (25.1%). Orthopedic and spinal procedures were at highest risk for all-cause and infection-related different hospital re-admission. Infection-related different hospital re-admission risk factors included: Length of stay >30 days (odds ratio [OR] 2.28 [1.62-3.21], p < 0.01), age ≥65 years (OR 1.56 [1.38-1.76], p < 0.01), and Charlson Comorbidity Index >1 (OR 1.14 [1.01-1.28], p < 0.01) and differed from predictors of same-hospital infectious re-admission. Non-elective surgical procedure (OR 0.79 [0.72-0.87], p < 0.01) and initial hospitalization at a large hospital (OR 0.66 [0.59-0.74], p < 0.01) were protective. CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of post-operative re-admissions are missed by same-hospital re-admission data. All-cause and infection-related post-operative re-admissions to a different hospital are affected by unique patient and institution-specific factors. Re-admission reduction programs, quality metrics, and policy based on same hospital re-admission data should be updated to incorporate different hospital re-admission.

Anti-Xa-guided enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis reduces rate of deep venous thromboembolism in high-risk trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains undefined. This study evaluated an anti-Xa-guided enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis (TPX) protocol on the incidence of VTE in high-risk trauma patients based on Greenfield's Risk Assessment Profile (RAP) score. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study of patients admitted to a trauma intensive care unit over a 12-month period. Patients were included if they received anti-Xa-guided enoxaparin TPX. Dosage was adjusted to a prophylactic peak anti-Xa level of 0.2 to 0.4 IU/mL. Subgroup analysis was performed on high-risk patients (RAP score ≥10) who received lower-extremity duplex ultrasound surveillance for deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Data are expressed as mean ± SD. Significance was assessed at p < 0.05. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-one patients received anti-Xa-guided enoxaparin TPX. Four patients were excluded for age or acute VTE on admission. Fifty-six patients with RAP score of ≥10 and surveillance duplex evaluations were included in the subgroup analysis with mean age 43 ± 20 years, Injury Severity Score of 25 ± 10, and RAP score of 16 ± 4. Prophylactic anti-Xa levels were initially achieved in 34.6% of patients. An additional 25.2% required 40 to 60 mg twice daily to reach prophylactic levels; 39.4% never reached prophylactic levels. Weight, body mass index, ISS, and RAP score were significantly higher with subprophylactic anti-Xa levels. One patient developed bleeding complications (0.8%). No patient developed intracerebral bleeding or heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.Nine VTE events occurred in the high-risk subgroup, including four DVT (7.1%), all asymptomatic, and five pulmonary emboli (8.9%). The historical rate of DVT in similar patients (ISS 31 ± 12 and RAP score 16 ± 5) was 20.5%, a significant decrease (p = 0.031). Mean chest Abbreviated Injury Scale scores were significantly higher for patients developing pulmonary emboli than DVT, 3.0 ± 1.1 vs. 0.0 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Mean chest Abbreviated Injury Scale score was higher in patients developing pulmonary embolism. Increased weight, body mass index, ISS, and RAP score are associated with subprophylactic anti-Xa levels. Anti-Xa-guided enoxaparin dosing reduced the rate of DVT from 20.5% to 7.1% in high-risk trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.