Assuring survival of safety-net surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Survival of surgical inpatients is a key quality metric. Patient, surgeon, and system factors all contribute to inpatient mortality, and sophisticated risk adjustment is required to assess outcomes. When the mortality of general surgery patients was determined to be high at a safety-net hospital, a comprehensive approach was undertaken to improve patient survival. METHODS: General surgical service line mortality was measured in the database of the University HealthSystem Consortium from January 2013 through June 2015. Ten best practices were implemented sequentially to decrease observed and/or increase expected mortality. University HealthSystem Consortium mortality rank, observed, expected, and observed/expected index as well as early deaths were compared with control charts for 30 months. RESULTS: University HealthSystem Consortium general surgery mortality improved from the bottom decile to the top quartile, while Case Mix Index increased from 2.48 to 2.82 (P < .05). Observed mortality decreased from 3.39 to 2.35%. Expected mortality increased from 1.40 to 2.73% (P < .05). The observed/expected mortality index decreased from 2.43 to 0.86 (P < .05). Early deaths decreased from 0.52 to 0% (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Risk-adjusted mortality and early deaths decreased significantly over 30 months in general surgery patients. Systematic implementation of quality best practices was associated with improved survival of general surgery patients at a safety-net medical center.

Prehospital intubation does not decrease complications in the penetrating trauma patient.

Intubation in the prehospital setting does not result in a survival benefit in penetrating trauma. However, the effect of prehospital intubation (PHI) on the development of in-hospital complications has yet to be determined. The goal of this study was to determine if PHI in patients with penetrating trauma results in reduced mortality and in-hospital complications. Patient records for all Category 1 trauma activations as a result of penetrating injury admitted to our institution from 2006 to 2010 were reviewed. There were 1615 Category 1 trauma activations with 152 (9.8%) intubated in the field. A total of 1311 survived initial resuscitative efforts to permit hospital admission with 55 (4.2%) being intubated in the field. For patients surviving to admission, prehospital intubation was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 8.266; 95% confidence interval [CI, 4.336 to 15.758; P < 0.001). After correcting for Injury Severity Score, PHI was not protective against pulmonary complications (odds ratio [OR], 0.724; 95% CI, 0.229 to 2.289; P = 0.582), deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolus (OR, 0.838; 95% CI, 0.281 to 2.494; P = 0.750), sepsis (OR, 0.572; 95% CI, 0.201 to 1.633; P = 0.297), wound infections (OR, 1.739; 95% CI, 0.630 to 4.782; P = 0.286), or complications of any kind (OR, 1.020; 95% CI, 0.480 to 2.166; P = 0.959). For victims of penetrating trauma, immediate transportation by emergency medical personnel may result in improved outcomes.

Prehospital interventions for penetrating trauma victims: a prospective comparison between Advanced Life Support and Basic Life Support.

BACKGROUND: Advanced Life Support (ALS) providers may perform more invasive prehospital procedures, while Basic Life Support (BLS) providers offer stabilisation care and often "scoop and run". We hypothesised that prehospital interventions by urban ALS providers prolong prehospital time and decrease survival in penetrating trauma victims. STUDY DESIGN: We prospectively analysed 236 consecutive ambulance-transported, penetrating trauma patients an our urban Level-1 trauma centre (6/2008-12/2009). Inclusion criteria included ICU admission, length of stay >/=2 days, or in-hospital death. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcomes were compared between ALS and BLS patients. Single and multiple variable logistic regression analysis determined predictors of hospital survival. RESULTS: Of 236 patients, 71% were transported by ALS and 29% by BLS. When ALS and BLS patients were compared, no differences in age, penetrating mechanism, scene GCS score, Injury Severity Score, or need for emergency surgery were detected (p>0.05). Patients transported by ALS units more often underwent prehospital interventions (97% vs. 17%; p<0.01), including endotracheal intubation, needle thoracostomy, cervical collar, IV placement, and crystalloid resuscitation. While ALS ambulance on-scene time was significantly longer than that of BLS (p<0.01), total prehospital time was not (p=0.98) despite these prehospital interventions (1.8 ± 1.0 per ALS patient vs. 0.2 ± 0.5 per BLS patient; p<0.01). Overall, 69.5% ALS patients and 88.4% of BLS patients (p<0.01) survived to hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: Prehospital resuscitative interventions by ALS units performed on penetrating trauma patients may lengthen on-scene time but do not significantly increase total prehospital time. Regardless, these interventions did not appear to benefit our rapidly transported, urban penetrating trauma patients.

Skin closure after trauma laparotomy in high-risk patients: opening opportunities for improvement.

BACKGROUND: Although many surgeons leave laparotomy incisions open after colon injury to prevent surgical site infection (SSI), other injured patient subsets are also at risk. We hypothesized that leaving trauma laparotomy skin incisions open in high-risk patients with any enteric injury or requiring damage control laparotomy (DCL) would not affect superficial SSI and fascial dehiscence rates. METHODS: Patients who underwent trauma laparotomy (2004-2008) at two Level I centers were reviewed. To ensure a high-risk sample, only patients with transmural enteric injuries or need for DCL surviving 5 days or more were included. SSIs were categorized by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) criteria and risk factors were analyzed by skin closure (open vs. any closure). Significant (p < 0.05) univariate variables were applied to two multivariate analyses examining superficial SSI and fascial dehiscence. RESULTS: Of 1,501 patients who underwent laparotomy, 503 met inclusion criteria. Patients were young (median, 28.0 years; range, 22.0-40.0 years) with penetrating (74%) or enteric (80%) injuries, and DCL (36%) and SSI (44%; superficial, 25%; deep, 3%; organ/space, 25%) were common. While no difference in superficial SSI after loose (n = 136) or complete skin closure (n = 224) was detected (p = 0.64), superficial SSIs were less common with open skin incisions (9.8%), despite multiple risk factors, than with any skin closure (31.1%, p < 0.001). Predictors of superficial SSIs and fascial dehiscence were each evaluated with multiple-variable logistic regression analysis. After adjusting for multiple potential confounding variables, any skin closure increased the risk of superficial SSIs approximately nine times (odds ratio, 8.6; p < 0.001) and fascial dehiscence six times (odds ratio, 5.7; p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Management of skin incisions takes careful consideration like any other step of a laparotomy. Our results suggest that the decision to leave skin open is one simple method to improve outcomes in high-risk patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level III.

"SCIP"ping antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines in trauma: The consequences of noncompliance.

OBJECTIVE: The Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) established surgical antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines as part of a national patient safety initiative aimed at reducing surgical complications such as surgical site infection (SSI). Although these antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines have become well established in surgical patients, they remain largely unstudied in patients with injury from trauma undergoing operative procedures. We sought to determine the role of these antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines in preventing SSI in patients undergoing trauma laparotomy. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent emergency trauma laparotomy at two Level I trauma centers (2007-2008) revealed 306 patients who survived more than 4 days after injury. Demographics and clinical risk SSI factors were analyzed, and patients were compared on the basis of adherence to the following SCIP guidelines: (1) prophylactic antibiotic given, (2) antibiotic received within 1 hour before incision, (3) correct antibiotic selection, and (4) discontinuation of antibiotic within 24 hours after surgery. The primary study end point was the development of SSI. RESULTS: The study sample varied by age (mean [SD], 32 [16] years) and injury mechanism (gunshot wound 44%, stab wound 27%, blunt trauma 30%). When patients with perioperative antibiotic management complying with the four SCIP antibiotic guidelines (n = 151) were compared with those who did not comply (n = 155), no difference between age, shock, small bowel or colon resection, damage control procedures, and skin closure was detected (p > 0.05). After controlling for injury severity score, hypotension, blood transfusion, enteric injury, operative duration, and other potential confounding variables in a multivariate analysis, complete adherence to these four SCIP antibiotic guidelines independently decreased the risk of SSI (odds ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.94; p = 0.035). Patients adhering to these guidelines less often developed SSI (17% vs. 33%, p = 0.001) and had shorter overall hospital duration of antibiotics (4 [6] vs. 9 [11] days, p < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (14 [13] vs. 19 [23] days, p = 0.016), although no difference in mortality was detected (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that SCIP antibiotic prophylaxis guidelines effectively reduce the risk of SSI in patients undergoing trauma laparotomy. Despite the emergent nature of operative procedures for trauma, efforts to adhere to these antibiotic guidelines should be maintained.

HIV and hepatitis in an urban penetrating trauma population: unrecognized and untreated.

BACKGROUND: Despite limited prospective data, it is commonly believed that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis infections are widespread in the penetrating trauma population, placing healthcare workers at risk for occupational exposure. Our primary study objective was to measure the prevalence of HIV (anti-HIV), hepatitis B (HB surface antigen [HBsAg]), and hepatitis C virus (anti-HCV) in our penetrating trauma population. METHODS: We prospectively analyzed penetrating trauma patients admitted to Temple University Hospital between August 2008 and February 2010. Patients (n = 341) were tested with an oral swab for anti-HIV and serum evaluated for HBsAg and anti-HCV. Positives were confirmed with western blot, neutralization immunoassay, and reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, respectively. Demographics, risk factors, and clinical characteristics were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 341 patients, 4 patients (1.2%) tested positive for anti-HIV and 2 had a positive HBsAg (0.6%). Hepatitis C was the most prevalent measured infection as anti-HCV was detected in 26 (7.6%) patients. Overall, 32 (9.4%) patients were tested positive for anti-HIV, HBsAg, or anti-HCV. Twenty-eight (75%) of these patients who tested positive were undiagnosed before study enrollment. When potential risk factors were analyzed, age (odds ratio, 1.07, p = 0.031) and intravenous drug use (odds ratio 14.4, p < 0.001) independently increased the likelihood of anti-HIV, HBsAg, or anti-HCV-positive markers. CONCLUSIONS: Greater than 9% of our penetrating trauma study population tested positive for anti-HIV, HBsAg, or anti-HCV although patients were infrequently aware of their seropositive status. As penetrating trauma victims frequently require expedient, invasive procedures, universal precautions are essential. The prevalence of undiagnosed HIV and hepatitis in penetrating trauma victims provides an important opportunity for education, screening, and earlier treatment of this high-risk population.

A prospective validation of a current practice: the detection of extremity vascular injury with CT angiography.

INTRODUCTION: Arteriography is the current "gold standard" for the detection of extremity vascular injuries. Less invasive than operative exploration, conventional arteriography (CA) still has a 1% to 3% risk of morbidity and may delay definitive repair. Recent improvements in computed tomography (CT) technology has since broadened the application of CT to include the diagnosis of cervical, thoracic, and now extremity vascular injury. We hypothesized that CT angiography (CTA) provides equivalent injury detection compared with the more invasive CA, but is more rapidly completed and more cost effective. METHODS: A prospective evaluation of patients, ages 18 to 50, with potential extremity vascular injuries was performed during 2006-2007. Ankle-brachial indices (ABI) of injured extremities were measured on presentation in all patients without hard signs of vascular injury. Patients whose injured extremity ABI was <0.9 were enrolled and underwent CTA followed by either CA or operative exploration if CTA findings were limb threatening. Interventionalists were blinded to CTA findings before performing and reading CAs. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients (mean age, 26.1 +/- 7.1 years) had 22 extremity CTAs after gunshot (82%), stab (9%), or pedestrian struck by automobile (9%) injuries to either upper (32%) or lower (68%) extremities. Eleven of 22 (50%) extremities had associated orthopedic injuries while the mean ABI of the study population was 0.72 +/- 0.21. Twenty-one of 22 (96%) CTAs were diagnostic and all CTAs were confirmed by either CA alone (n = 18), operative exploration (n = 2), or both CA and operative exploration (n = 2). Diagnostic CTAs had 100% sensitivity and specificity for clinically relevant vascular injury detection. Unlike rapidly obtained CTA, CA required 131 +/- 61 minutes (mean +/- SD) to complete. In our center, CTA saves $12,922 in patient charges and $1,166 in hospital costs per extremity when compared with CA. CONCLUSIONS: With acceptable injury detection, rapid availability, and a favorable cost profile, our results suggest that CTA may replace CA as the diagnostic study of choice for vascular injuries of the extremities.

Emergency department thoracotomy: still useful after abdominal exsanguination?

BACKGROUND: Although literature regarding emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) outcome after abdominal exsanguination is limited, numerous reports have documented poor EDT survival in patients with anatomic injuries other than cardiac wounds. As a result, many trauma surgeons consider prelaparotomy EDT futile for patients dying from intra-abdominal hemorrhage. Our primary study objective was to prove that prelaparotomy EDT is beneficial to patients with exsanguinating abdominal hemorrhage. METHODS: A retrospective review of 237 consecutive EDTs for penetrating injury (2000-2006) revealed 50 patients who underwent EDT for abdominal exsanguination. Age, gender, injury mechanism and location, field and emergency department (ED) signs of life, prehospital time, initial ED cardiac rhythm, vital signs, Glasgow Coma Score, blood transfusion requirements, predicted mortality, primary abdominal injuries, and the need for temporary abdominal closure were analyzed. The primary study endpoint was neurologically intact hospital survival. RESULTS: The 50 patients who underwent prelaparotomy EDT for abdominal exsanguination were largely young (mean, 27.3 +/- 8.2 years) males (94%) suffering firearm injuries (98%). Patients presented with field (84%) and ED signs of life (78%) after a mean prehospital time of 21.2 +/- 9.8 minutes. Initial ED cardiac rhythms were variable and Glasgow Coma Score was depressed (mean, 4.2 +/- 3.2). Eight (16%) patients survived hospitalization, neurologically intact. Of these eight, all were in hemorrhagic shock because of major abdominal vascular (75%) or severe liver injuries (25%) and all required massive blood transfusion (mean, 28.6 +/- 17.3 units) and extended intensive care unit length of stay (mean, 36.3 +/- 25.7 days). CONCLUSIONS: Despite critical injuries, 16% survived hospitalization, neurologically intact, after EDT for abdominal exsanguination. Our results suggest that prelaparotomy EDT provides survival benefit to penetrating trauma victims dying from intra-abdominal hemorrhage.

Prehospital procedures before emergency department thoracotomy: "scoop and run" saves lives.

BACKGROUND: The role of prehospital healthcare personnel in the management of acutely injured patients is rapidly evolving. However, the performance of prehospital procedures on unstable, penetrating trauma patients remains controversial. The objective of this study is to test the hypothesis that survival of most critically injured penetrating trauma patients requiring emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) would be improved if procedures were restricted until arrival to the trauma bay. METHODS: A retrospective chart review on 180 consecutive penetrating trauma patients (2000-2005) who underwent EDT was performed. Patients were divided into two groups by mode of transportation and compared on the basis of demographics, clinical and physiologic parameters, prehospital procedures, and survival. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients arrived by emergency medical services (EMS), and 92 were brought by police or private vehicle. Groups were similar with respect to demographics. Seven of 88 (8.0%) EMS-transported patients survived until hospital discharge, and 16 of 92 (17.4%) survived after police or private transportation. Overall, 137 prehospital procedures were performed in 78 of 88 (88.6%) EMS-transported patients, but no police- or private-transported patient underwent field procedures. Multivariate logistic regression analyses identified prehospital procedures as the sole independent predictor of mortality. For each procedure, patients were 2.63 times more likely to die before hospital discharge (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.18-0.79, p = 0.0096). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of prehospital procedures in critical, penetrating trauma victims had a negative impact on survival after EDT in our study population. Paramedics should adhere to a minimal or "scoop and run" approach to prehospital transportation in this setting.

A ten-year retrospective review: does pyloric exclusion improve clinical outcome after penetrating duodenal and combined pancreaticoduodenal injuries?

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether the performance of pyloric exclusion during repair of penetrating advanced duodenal injuries prevents postoperative duodenal fistulas and improves clinical outcome. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients from 1995 to 2004 with penetrating duodenal injuries >or=grade II and all combined pancreaticoduodenal injuries was performed. Patients managed either without or with pyloric exclusion were compared on the basis of age, sex, mechanism, injury grade, Injury Severity Score (ISS), hemodynamic stability, the presence of vascular injury or associated injuries, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, and mortality. RESULTS: Fifteen of 29 patients were managed without pyloric exclusion and 14 with exclusion. Both groups were similar with respect to age, sex, mechanism, injury grade, ISS, hemodynamic stability, the presence of vascular injury, associated abdominal injuries, and mortality rates. A trend toward a higher overall complication rate (71% vs. 33%), pancreatic fistula rate (40% vs. 0%), and length of hospital stay (24.3 days vs. 13.5 days) was evident in the pyloric exclusion group. No duodenal fistula was detected in either patient group. CONCLUSION: In our study population, the performance of pyloric exclusion for penetrating advanced duodenal injury and combined pancreatic and duodenal injuries did not improve clinical outcome. The trend toward a greater overall complication rate, pancreatic fistula rate, and increased length of hospital stay in the pyloric exclusion group suggests that simple repair without pyloric exclusion is both adequate and safe for most penetrating duodenal injuries.

Immediate postoperative complications of combined penetrating rectal and bladder injuries.

BACKGROUND: Combined penetrating trauma involving the rectum and bladder has been associated with increased postoperative morbidity. Specific complications resulting from these injuries include colovesical fistula, urinoma, and abscess formation. METHODS: A retrospective review of Temple University Hospital trauma database was performed. Patients were categorized by having an isolated rectal (n = 29), isolated bladder (n = 16), or combined injury (n = 24). Records were reviewed for sex, age, site of injury, location of rectal and bladder injuries, operative intervention, fistula formation, urinoma formation, abscess formation, time to urinary catheter removal, length of intensive care unit stay, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Patient sex and age did not differ significantly between groups, nor was there a significant difference in location of rectal injury between groups. Presacral drainage was utilized in all patients with extraperitoneal injuries. Fecal diversion was performed in all patients, except two with intraperitoneal rectal injuries. Omental flap interposition between rectal and bladder injuries was utilized in one patient. No significant difference was noted in immediate postoperative complications between groups including fistula, urinoma, and abscess formation. However, all cases of colovesical fistula (n = 2) and urinoma (n = 2) formation were noted in those patients with rectal and posterior bladder injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Combined rectal and bladder injuries were not associated with an increase in immediate postoperative complications compared with isolated rectal and bladder injuries. However, postoperative fistula and urinoma formation occurred only in patients with a combined rectal and posterior bladder injury. Consequently, these patients may benefit from omental flap interposition between injuries to decrease fistula and urinoma formation.