Age is But a Number: Damage Control Surgery Outcomes in Geriatric Emergency General Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Damage control surgery (DCS) with temporary abdominal closure (TAC) is increasingly utilized in emergency general surgery (EGS). As the population ages, more geriatric patients (GP) are undergoing EGS operations. Concern exists for GP's ability to tolerate DCS. We hypothesize that DCS in GP does not increase morbidity or mortality and has similar rates of primary closure compared to non-geriatric patients (NGP). METHODS: A retrospective chart review from 2014-2020 was conducted on all non-trauma EGS patients who underwent DCS with TAC. Demographics, admission lab values, fluid amounts, length of stay (LOS), timing of closure, post-operative complications and mortality were collected. GP were compared to NGP and results were analyzed using Chi square and Wilcox signed rank test. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients (n = 50, <65 y; n = 48, ≥65 y) met inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in median number of operations (3 versus 2), time to primary closure (2.5 versus 3 d), hospital LOS (19 versus 17.5 d), ICU LOS (11 versus 8 d), rate of primary closure (66% versus 56%), post op ileus (44% versus 48%), abscess (14% versus 10%), need for surgery after closure (32% versus 19%), anastomotic dehiscence (16% versus 6%), or mortality (34% versus 42%). Average time until take back after index procedure did not vary significantly between young and elderly group (45.8 versus 38.5 h; P = 0.89). GP were more likely to have hypertension (83% versus 50%; P ≤ 0.05), atrial fibrillation (25% versus 4%; P ≤ 0.05) and lower median heart rate compared to NGP (90 versus 103; P ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: DCS with TAC in geriatric EGS patients achieves similar outcomes and mortality to younger patients. Indication, not age, should factor into the decision to perform DCS.

Fever in the ICU: A Predictor of Mortality in Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients.

PURPOSE: While fever may be a presenting symptom of COVID-19, fever at hospital admission has not been identified as a predictor of mortality. However, hyperthermia during critical illness among ventilated COVID-19 patients in the ICU has not yet been studied. We sought to determine mortality predictors among ventilated COVID-19 ICU patients and we hypothesized that fever in the ICU is predictive of mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 103 ventilated COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU between March 14 and May 27, 2020. Final follow-up was June 5, 2020. Patients discharged from the ICU or who died were included. Patients still admitted to the ICU at final follow-up were excluded. RESULTS: 103 patients were included, 40 survived and 63(61.1%) died. Deceased patients were older {66 years[IQR18] vs 62.5[IQR10], (p = 0.0237)}, more often male {48(68%) vs 22(55%), (p = 0.0247)}, had lower initial oxygen saturation {86.0%[IQR18] vs 91.5%[IQR11.5], (p = 0.0060)}, and had lower pH nadir than survivors {7.10[IQR0.2] vs 7.30[IQR0.2] (p < 0.0001)}. Patients had higher peak temperatures during ICU stay as compared to hospital presentation {103.3°F[IQR1.7] vs 100.0°F[IQR3.5], (p < 0.0001)}. Deceased patients had higher peak ICU temperatures than survivors {103.6°F[IQR2.0] vs 102.9°F[IQR1.4], (p = 0.0008)}. Increasing peak temperatures were linearly associated with mortality. Febrile patients who underwent targeted temperature management to achieve normothermia did not have different outcomes than those not actively cooled. Multivariable analysis revealed 60% and 75% higher risk of mortality with peak temperature greater than 103°F and 104°F respectively; it also confirmed hyperthermia, age, male sex, and acidosis to be predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This is one of the first studies to identify ICU hyperthermia as predictive of mortality in ventilated COVID-19 patients. Additional predictors included male sex, age, and acidosis. With COVID-19 cases increasing, identification of ICU mortality predictors is crucial to improve risk stratification, resource management, and patient outcomes.

The impact of inpatient palliative care on end-of-life care among older trauma patients who die after hospital discharge.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) is associated with lower-intensity treatment and better outcomes at the end of life. Trauma surgeons play a critical role in end-of-life (EOL) care; however, the impact of PC on health care utilization at the end of life has yet to be characterized in older trauma patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study using 2006 to 2011 national Medicare claims included trauma patients 65 years or older who died within 180 days after discharge. The exposure of interest was inpatient PC during the trauma admission. A non-PC control group was developed by exact matching for age, comorbidity, admission year, injury severity, length of stay, and post-discharge survival. We used logistic regression to evaluate six EOL care outcomes: discharge to hospice, rehospitalization, skilled nursing facility or long-term acute care hospital admission, death in an institutional setting, and intensive care unit admission or receipt of life-sustaining treatments during a subsequent hospitalization. RESULTS: Of 294,665 patients who died within 180 days after discharge, 2.1% received inpatient PC. Among 5,693 matched pairs, inpatient PC was associated with increased odds of discharge to hospice (odds ratio [OR], 3.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.54-4.09) and reduced odds of rehospitalization (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.15-0.20), skilled nursing facility/long-term acute care hospital admission (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.39-0.47), death in an institutional setting (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.30-0.39), subsequent intensive care unit admission (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.72), or receiving life-sustaining treatments (OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.39-0.80). CONCLUSION: Inpatient PC is associated with lower-intensity and less burdensome EOL care in the geriatric trauma population. Nonetheless, it remains underused among those who die within 6 months after discharge. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care management, level III.

Comparison of massive blood transfusion predictive models in the rural setting.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable death in trauma patients, of which 3% require massive transfusion (MT). MT predictive models such as the Assessment of Blood Consumption (ABC), Trauma-Associated Severe Hemorrhage (TASH), and McLaughlin scores have been developed, but only included patients requiring blood transfusion during their hospital stay, excluding a large percentage of trauma patients. Our purpose was to validate these MT predictive models in our rural Level I trauma center patient population, using all major trauma victims, regardless of blood product requirements. METHODS: Review of all Level I trauma patients admitted in 2008 to 2009 was performed. ABC, TASH, and McLaughlin scores were calculated using 80% probability for the need for MT. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-three patients were admitted; 13% had a penetrating mechanism and 52% were scene transports. MT patients had higher Injury Severity Score (median, 43 vs. 13; p < 0.001) and lower Trauma-Injury Severity Score (0.310 vs. 0.983; p < 0.001). Mortality was higher in MT patients (18.4% vs. 5.4%; p < 0.009). Thirty-eight (10%) required MT; 34 were predicted by ABC, one by TASH, and six by McLaughlin. ABC (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] = 0.86) was predictive of MT, whereas TASH (AUROC = 0.51) and McLaughlin (AUROC = 0.56) were not. CONCLUSIONS: The ABC score correctly identified 89% of MT patients and was predictive of MT in major trauma patients at our rural Level I trauma center; the TASH and McLaughlin scores were not. The ABC score is simpler, faster, and more accurate. Based on this work, we strongly recommend adoption of the ABC score for MT prediction.