A Prospective Multicenter Comparison of Trauma and Injury Severity Score, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status, and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Calculator's Ability to Predict Operative Trauma Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Trauma outcome prediction models have traditionally relied upon patient injury and physiologic data (eg, Trauma and Injury Severity Score [TRISS]) without accounting for comorbidities. We sought to prospectively evaluate the role of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) score and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk-Calculator (NSQIP-SRC), which are measurements of comorbidities, in the prediction of trauma outcomes, hypothesizing that they will improve the predictive ability for mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications compared to TRISS alone in trauma patients undergoing surgery within 24 hours. METHODS: A prospective, observational multicenter study (9/2018-2/2020) of trauma patients ≥18 years undergoing operation within 24 hours of admission was performed. Multiple logistic regression was used to create models predicting mortality utilizing the variables within TRISS, ASA-PS, and NSQIP-SRC, respectively. Linear regression was used to create models predicting LOS and negative binomial regression to create models predicting complications. RESULTS: From 4 level I trauma centers, 1213 patients were included. The Brier Score for each model predicting mortality was found to improve accuracy in the following order: 0.0370 for ASA-PS, 0.0355 for NSQIP-SRC, 0.0301 for TRISS, 0.0291 for TRISS+ASA-PS, and 0.0234 for TRISS+NSQIP-SRC. However, when comparing TRISS alone to TRISS+ASA-PS (P = .082) and TRISS+NSQIP-SRC (P = .394), there was no significant improvement in mortality prediction. NSQIP-SRC more accurately predicted both LOS and complications compared to TRISS and ASA-PS. CONCLUSIONS: TRISS predicts mortality better than ASA-PS and NSQIP-SRC in trauma patients undergoing surgery within 24 hours. The TRISS mortality predictive ability is not improved when combined with ASA-PS or NSQIP-SRC. However, NSQIP-SRC was the most accurate predictor of LOS and complications.

Preoperative Continuation Versus Interruption of Oral Hypoglycemics in Type 2 Diabetic Patients Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus receiving oral hypoglycemic drugs (OHDs) are usually instructed to stop them before surgery. We hypothesize that continuing OHD preoperatively should result in lower perioperative blood glucose (BG) levels. Ambulatory surgery patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on OHDs were randomized to continue (n = 69) or withhold (n = 73) OHDs preoperatively. Log-transformed BG levels at pre-, intra-, and postoperative periods were analyzed. Perioperative BG levels were significantly lower (mean, 138 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval, 130-146 mg/dL) in the group that continued versus the group that discontinued OHDs (mean, 156 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval, 146-167 mg/dL; P < .001).

Comparison of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator and Trauma and Injury Severity Score Risk Assessment Tools in Predicting Outcomes in High-Risk Operative Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) uses anatomic/physiologic variables to predict outcomes. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator (NSQIP-SRC) includes functional status and comorbidities. It is unclear which of these tools is superior for high-risk trauma patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) class IV or V). This study compares risk prediction of TRISS and NSQIP-SRC for mortality, length of stay (LOS), and complications for high-risk operative trauma patients. METHODS: This is a prospective study of high-risk (ASA-PS IV or V) trauma patients (≥18 years-old) undergoing surgery at 4 trauma centers. We compared TRISS vs NSQIP-SRC vs NSQIP-SRC + TRISS for ability to predict mortality, LOS, and complications using linear, logistic, and negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Of 284 patients, 48 (16.9%) died. The median LOS was 16 days and number of complications was 1. TRISS + NSQIP-SRC best predicted mortality (AUROC: .877 vs .723 vs .843, P = .0018) and number of complications (pseudo-R2/median error (ME) 5.26%/1.15 vs 3.39%/1.33 vs 2.07%/1.41, P < .001) compared to NSQIP-SRC or TRISS, but there was no difference between TRISS + NSQIP-SRC and NSQIP-SRC with LOS prediction (P = .43). DISCUSSION: For high-risk operative trauma patients, TRISS + NSQIP-SRC performed better at predicting mortality and number of complications compared to NSQIP-SRC or TRISS alone but similar to NSQIP-SRC alone for LOS. Thus, future risk prediction and comparisons across trauma centers for high-risk operative trauma patients should include a combination of anatomic/physiologic data, comorbidities, and functional status.

Comparison of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator, Trauma and Injury Severity Score, and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status to predict operative trauma mortality in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) uses anatomical and physiologic variables to predict mortality. Elderly (65 years or older) trauma patients have increased mortality and morbidity for a given TRISS, in part because of functional status and comorbidities. These factors are incorporated into the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator (NSQIP-SRC). We hypothesized scoring tools using comorbidities and functional status to be superior at predicting mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications in elderly trauma patients undergoing operation. METHODS: Four level I trauma centers prospectively collected data on elderly trauma patients undergoing surgery within 24 hours of admission. Using logistic regression, five scoring models were compared: ASA-PS, NSQIP-SRC, TRISS, TRISS-ASA-PS, and TRISS-NSQIP-SRC.Brier scores and area under the receiver operator characteristics curve were calculated to compare mortality prediction. Adjusted R2 and root mean squared error were used to compare LOS and predictive ability for number of complications. RESULTS: From 122 subjects, 9 (7.4%) died, and the average LOS was 12.9 days (range, 1-110 days). National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator was superior to ASA-PS and TRISS at predicting mortality (area under the receiver operator characteristics curve, 0.978 vs. 0.768 vs. 0.903; p = 0.007). Furthermore, NSQIP-SRC was more accurate predicting LOS (R2, 25.9% vs. 13.3% vs. 20.5%) and complications (R2, 34.0% vs. 22.6% vs. 29.4%) compared with TRISS and ASA-PS. Adding TRISS to NSQIP-SRC improved predictive ability compared with NSQIP-SRC alone for complications (R2, 35.5% vs. 34.0%; p = 0.046). However, adding ASA-PS or TRISS to NSQIP-SRC did not improve the predictive ability for mortality or LOS. CONCLUSION: The NSQIP-SRC, which includes comorbidities and functional status, had superior ability to predict mortality, LOS, and complications compared with TRISS alone in elderly trauma patients undergoing surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

Intravenous vs oral acetaminophen in sinus surgery: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Multimodal perioperative analgesia including acetaminophen is recommended by current guidelines. The comparative efficacy of intravenous vs oral acetaminophen in sinus surgery is unknown. We aimed to determine whether intravenous or oral acetaminophen results in superior postoperative analgesia following sinus surgery. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized trial with blinded endpoint assessments conducted at a single large academic medical center. Subjects undergoing functional endoscopic sinus surgery were randomized to intravenous vs oral acetaminophen in addition to standard anesthetic and surgical care. The primary outcome was visual analogue scale pain score at 1 hour postoperatively. RESULTS: One hundred and ten adult patients were randomized; 9 were excluded from the data analysis. Fifty patients were assigned to intravenous acetaminophen and 51 to oral acetaminophen. Postoperative pain scores at 1 hour (primary endpoint) were not significantly different between the intravenous and oral acetaminophen groups. Similarly, there was no significant difference in pain scores at 24 hours postoperatively. Finally, there was no significant difference in postoperative opioid usage in the postanesthesia care unit or over the first 24 hours postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comparative efficacy trial of oral vs intravenous acetaminophen in sinus surgery. There was no significant difference in pain scores at 1 or 24 hours postoperatively, and no difference in postoperative opioid use. Intravenous acetaminophen offers no apparent advantage over oral acetaminophen in patients undergoing sinus surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1b.

Psychophysiological Stress Indicators of Heart Rate Variability and Electrodermal Activity With Application in Healthcare Simulation Research.

STATEMENT: Psychological stress arises from a stressor placed on an individual that leads to both emotional and physiological responses. The latter is referred to as psychophysiological stress. Healthcare simulation provides a platform to investigate stress psychobiology and its effects on learning and performance. However, psychophysiological stress measures may be underused in healthcare simulation research. The inclusion of such measures with subjective measures of stress in healthcare simulation research provides a more complete picture of the stress response, thereby furthering the understanding of stress and its impact on learning and performance. The goals of this article were to review 2 commonly used psychophysiological stress measures involving heart rate variability and electrodermal activity reflecting sweat gland activity and to demonstrate their utility in an example pilot study in healthcare simulation research.

The role of the American Society of anesthesiologists physical status classification in predicting trauma mortality and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Trauma prediction scores such as Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS)) are used to predict mortality, but do not include comorbidities. We analyzed the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA PS) for predicting mortality in trauma patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective study compared the mortality predictive ability of ASA PS, RTS, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and TRISS using a complete case analysis with mixed effects logistic regression. Associations with mortality and AROC were calculated for each measure alone and tested for differences using chi-square. RESULTS: Of 3,042 patients, 230 (8%) died. The AROC for mortality for TRISS was 0.938 (95%CI 0.921, 0.954), RTS 0.845 (95%CI 0.815, 0.875), and ASA PS 0.886 (95%CI 0.864, 0.908). ASA PS + TRISS did not improve mortality predictive ability (p = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: ASA PS was a good predictor of mortality in trauma patients, although combined with TRISS it did not improve predictive ability.

Lidocaine Infusion: A Promising Therapeutic Approach for Chronic Pain.

Opioid abuse is a national epidemic in the United States, where it is estimated that a prescription drug overdose death occurs every 19 minutes. While opioids are highly effective in acute and subacute pain control, their use for treatment of chronic pain is controversial. Chronic opioids use is associated with tolerance, dependency, hyperalgesia. Although there are new strategies and practice guidelines to reduce opioid dependence and opioid prescription drug overdose, there has been little focus on development of opioid-sparing therapeutic approaches. Lidocaine infusion has been shown to be successful in controlling pain where other agents have failed. The opioid sparing properties of lidocaine infusion added to its analgesic and antihyperalgesic properties make lidocaine infusion a viable option for pain control in opioid dependent patients. In this review, we provide an overview of the opioid abuse epidemic, and we outline current evidence supporting the potential use of lidocaine infusion as an adjuvant therapeutic approach for management of chronic pain.

Clonidine, but not Dexamethasone, Prolongs Ropivacaine-Induced Supraclavicular Brachial Plexus Nerve Block Duration.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block (USSB) provides excellent postoperative analgesia after upper extremity surgery. Dexamethasone and clonidine have been added to local anesthetics to enhance and prolong the duration of analgesia. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this randomized prospective study is to evaluate the efficacy of dexamethasone, clonidine, or combination of both as adjuvants to ropivacaine on the duration of USSB for postoperative analgesia. METHODS: Patients receiving USSB for postoperative pain control for upper extremity surgery were randomized to one of four groups; ropivacaine 0.5%, ropivacaine 0.5% with 4 mg dexamethasone, ropivacaine 0.5% with 100 mcg clonidine , or ropivacaine 0.5% with 4 mg dexamethasone and 100 mcg clonidine. Pain scores, sensory and motor function were evaluated at post anesthesia care unit (PACU), discharge and at 24 h postoperatively. RESULTS: The duration of sensory and motor blocks was significantly longer in clonidine groups when compared to ropivacaine alone [Sensorial analgesia: ropivacaine alone 13.4±6, Ropivacaine- Clonidine 17.4±6; Ropivacaine-Dexamethasone-Clonidine 18.8±6.2; Motor blocks: Ropivacaine 12±5, Ropivacaine-Clonidine 16.8±5.2, Ropivacaine-Dexamethasone-Clonidine 18.2±5.7]. In clonidine groups, there was significant prolongation of motor and sensory block when compared to ropivacaine group alone. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated that clonidine significantly prolongs the duration of ropivacaine effects for the postoperative analgesia in patient underwent upper arm surgeries.

Body mass index and outcomes of in-hospital ventricular tachycardia and ventricular fibrillation arrest.

BACKGROUND: Due to higher transthoracic impedance, obese patients may be less likely to be successfully defibrillated from ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) arrest. However, the association between patient body mass index (BMI), defibrillation success, and survival outcomes of VT/VF arrest are poorly understood. METHODS: We evaluated 7110 patients with in-hospital VT/VF arrest at 286 hospitals within the Get With The Guidelines(®)-Resuscitation (GWTG-R) Multicenter Observational Registry between 2006 and 2012. Patients were categorized as underweight (BMI<18.5kg/m(2)), normal weight (BMI 18.5-24.9kg/m(2)), over-weight (BMI 25.0-29.9kg/m(2)), obese (BMI 30.0-34.9kg/m(2)), and extremely obese (BMI≥35.0kg/m(2)). Using generalized linear mixed regression, we determined the risk-adjusted relationship between BMI and patient outcomes while accounting for clustering by hospitals. The primary outcome was successful first shock defibrillation (a post-shock rhythm other than VT/VF) with secondary outcomes of return of spontaneous circulation, survival to 24h, and survival to discharge. RESULTS: Among adult patients suffering VT/VF arrest, 304 (4.3%) were underweight, 2061 (29.0%) were normal weight, 2139 (30.1%) were overweight, and 2606 (36.6%) were obese or extremely obese. In a risk-adjusted analysis, we observed no interaction between BMI and energy level for the successful termination of VT/VF with first shock. Furthermore, the risk-adjusted likelihood of successful first shock termination of VT/VF did not differ significantly across BMI categories. Finally, when compared to overweight patients, obese patients had similar risk-adjusted likelihood of survival to hospital discharge (odds ratio 0.786, 95% confidence interval 0.593-1.043). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the likelihood of successful defibrillation with the first shock attempt among different BMI categories.