Should We Keep or Transfer Our Severely Injured Geriatric Patients to Higher Levels of Care?

INTRODUCTION: Interfacility transfer to higher levels of care is becoming increasingly common. This study aims to evaluate the association between transfer to higher levels of care and prolonged transfer times with outcomes of severely injured geriatric trauma patients compared to those who are managed definitively at lower-level trauma centers. METHODS: Severely injured (Injury Severity Score >15) geriatric (≥60 y) trauma patients in the 2017-2018 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database managing at an American College of Surgeons/State Level III trauma center or transferring to a level I or II trauma center were included. Outcome measures were 24-h and in-hospital mortality and major complications. RESULTS: Forty thousand seven hundred nineteen patients were identified. Mean age was 75 ± 8 y, 54% were male, 98% had a blunt mechanism of injury, and the median Injury Severity Score was 17 [16-21]. Median transfer time was 112 [79-154] min, and the most common transport mode was ground ambulance (82.3%). Transfer to higher levels of care within 90 min was associated with lower 24-h mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.493, P < 0.001) and similar odds of in-hospital mortality as those managed at level III centers. However, every 30-min delay in transfer time beyond 90 min was progressively associated with increased odds of 24-h (aOR: 1.058, P < 0.001) and in-hospital (aOR: 1.114, P < 0.001) mortality and major complications (aOR: 1.127, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Every 30-min delay in interfacility transfer time beyond 90 min is associated with 6% and 11% higher risk-adjusted odds of 24-h and in-hospital mortality, respectively. Estimated interfacility transfer time should be considered while deciding about transferring severely injured geriatric trauma patients to a higher level of care.

Diagnostic Laparoscopy in Trauma Patients: Do We Need to Open and See if We Can See Without Opening?

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) has been advocated to reduce the incidence of nontherapeutic laparotomies (NL) among stable trauma patients. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of hemodynamically stable trauma patients undergoing DL versus NL. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database over 4 y (2017-2020). Hemodynamically stable (systolic blood pressure >90 & heart rate < 120) adult (≥18 y) trauma patients undergoing DL or NL were included. Patients were stratified into DL and NL and substratified based on the mechanism of injury (blunt versus penetrating) and compared. RESULTS: Over 4 y, 3801 patients were identified, of which, 997 (26.2%) underwent DL. Overall, 25.6% sustained blunt injuries. The mean (SD) age was 39 (16) and 79.5% were male. The median injury severity score and abdominal abbreviated injury scale were 4 [4-9] and 1 [1-2], with no difference among study groups (P ≥ 0.05). The overall mortality and major complication rates were 2.8% and 13.2%, respectively. After controlling for potential confounding factors, DL was independently associated with lower odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 0.10, 95% CI [0.04-0.29], P < 0.001) and major complications (adjusted odds ratio: 0.38, 95% CI [0.29-0.50], P < 0.001) and shorter hospital length of stay (ß: -1.22, 95% CI [-1.78 to -0.67], P < 0.001). The trends toward improved outcomes in the DL group remained the same in the subanalysis of patients with penetrating and blunt injuries. CONCLUSIONS: With advances in minimally invasive surgery, unnecessary exploratory laparotomy can be avoided in many trauma patients. Our study shows that hemodynamically stable patients undergoing DL had superior outcomes compared to those with NL.