Admission Triage With Pain, Inspiratory Effort, Cough Score can Predict Critical Care Utilization and Length of Stay in Isolated Chest Wall Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Damage to the thoracic cage is common in the injured patient, both when the injuries are confined to this single cavity and as part of the overall injury burden of a polytraumatized patient. In a subset of these patients, the severity of injury to the intrathoracic viscera is either underappreciated at admission or blossom over the following 48-72 h. The ability to promptly identify these patients and abrogate complications therefore requires triage of such at-risk patients to close monitoring in a critical care environment. At our institution, this triage hinges on the Pain, Inspiratory effort, Cough (PIC) score, which generates a composite unitless score from a nomogram which aggregates several variables-patient-reported Pain visual analog scale, Incentive spirometry effort, and the perceived adequacy of Cough. We thus sought to audit PIC's discriminant power in predicting intensive care unit (ICU) need. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was performed at an urban, academic, level 1 trauma center. All isolated chest wall injuries (excluded any Abbreviated Injury Score >2 in head or abdomen) from January 2020 to June 2021 were identified in the local trauma registry. The electronic medical record was queried for standard demographics, admission PIC score, postadmission destination, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), and any unplanned admissions to the ICU. Chi-squared tests were used to determine differences between PIC score outcomes and the recursive partitioning method correlated admission PIC score to ICU LOS. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty six isolated chest wall injury patients were identified, of whom 194 were included in the final analysis. The median age was 60 (interquartile range [IQR] 50-74) years, 63.1% were male, and the median (IQR) number of rib fractures was 3.0 (2.0-5.0). A cutoff PIC score of 7 or lower was associated with ICU admission (odds ratio [OR] 95% CI: 8.19 [3.39-22.55], P < 0.001 with a PPV = 41.4%, NPV = 91%), and with ICU admission for greater than 48 h [OR (95% CI): 26.86 (5.5-43.96), P < 0.001, with a PPV = 25.9%, NPV = 98.7%] but not anatomic injury severity score, hospital LOS or ICU, or the requirement for mechanical ventilation. The association between PIC score 7 or below and the presence of bilateral fractures, flail chest, or sternal fracture did not meet statistical significance. The accurate cut point of the PIC score to predict ICU admission over 48 h in our retrospective cohort was calculated as PIC ≤ 7 for P = 0.013 and PIC ≤ 6 for P = 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with isolated chest wall injuries require effective reproducible triage for ICU-level care. The PIC score appears to be a moderate discriminator of critical care need, per se, as judged by our recorded complication rate requiring critical care intervention. This vigilance may pay dividends in early detection and abrogation of respiratory failure emergencies. Furthermore, PIC score delineation for ICU need appears to be appropriate at 7 or less; this threshold can be used during admission triage to guide care.

Mortality risk stratification in isolated severe traumatic brain injury using the revised cardiac risk index.

PURPOSE: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) continues to be a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. As cardiovascular events are among the most common extracranial causes of death after a severe TBI, the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) could potentially aid in the risk stratification of this patient population. This investigation aimed to determine the association between the RCRI and in-hospital deaths among isolated severe TBI patients. METHODS: All adult patients registered in the TQIP database between 2013 and 2017 who suffered an isolated severe TBI, defined as a head AIS ≥ 3 with an AIS ≤ 1 in all other body regions, were included. Patients were excluded if they had a head AIS of 6. The association between different RCRI scores (0, 1, 2, 3, ≥ 4) and in-hospital mortality was analyzed using a Poisson regression model with robust standard errors while adjusting for potential confounders, with RCRI 0 as the reference. RESULTS: 259,399 patients met the study's inclusion criteria. RCRI 2 was associated with a 6% increase in mortality risk [adjusted IRR (95% CI) 1.06 (1.01-1.12), p = 0.027], RCRI 3 was associated with a 17% increased risk of mortality [adjusted IRR (95% CI) 1.17 (1.05-1.31), p = 0.004], and RCRI ≥ 4 was associated with a 46% increased risk of in-hospital mortality [adjusted IRR(95% CI) 1.46 (1.11-1.90), p = 0.006], compared to RCRI 0. CONCLUSION: An elevated RCRI ≥ 2 is significantly associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality among patients with an isolated severe traumatic brain injury. The simplicity and bedside applicability of the index makes it an attractive choice for risk stratification in this patient population.

Contrasting patient, family, provider, and societal goals at the end of life complicate decision making and induce variability of care after trauma.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life (EoL) decision making during critical illness and injury is important in facilitating compassionate care that is congruent with patient, family, and societal expectations. Herein, we evaluate factors that may effect and induce variability in practitioner EoL decision making, particularly years in practice, use of advance directives (ADs), and cost. METHODS: An anonymous, online survey was offered to all active members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (n = 1,359) in June 2012. Demographic information and a series of questions dealing with common potentially influential factors were included. Responses were 5-point Likert scale based. RESULTS: A total of 375 responses (27.6%) were received. Ninety-two percent of the respondents were physicians, 70% were male, and 77% were from Level 1 trauma centers. Of respondents, 65.8% rely on family to make EoL decisions most or all of the time, while 80.7% feel family members are rarely or only sometimes in appropriate emotional states to make such choices. A significant number of practitioners felt comfortable making decisions without family input at all, more so with experienced practitioners as compared with those in practice for less than 15 years (38.2% and 24.1% respectively, p < 0.01).Of the practitioners, 59.6% rely on ADs most or all of the time, only 61.1% agree or strongly agree that ADs are useful, and only 56.3% feel families follow their loved one's ADs most or all of the time. A patient's family support or ability to pay for aftercare was rarely or never considered important by 80.1% of the practitioners, despite 85.1% reporting that quality of life postillness/injury was important most or all of the time. CONCLUSION: Practitioner comfort and motivation to influence EoL decision making varies with experience level. ADs are not uniformly perceived to be helpful, and costs are uncommonly considered. To improve EoL quality, these factors need to be considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management study, level IV.