The Florida Geriatric Head Trauma CT Clinical Decision Rule.

BACKGROUND: Several clinical decision rules have been devised to guide head computed tomography (CT) use in patients with minor head injuries, but none have been validated in patients 65 years or older. We aimed to derive and validate a head injury clinical decision rule for older adults. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of an existing dataset of consecutive emergency department (ED) patients >65 years old with blunt head trauma. The main predictive outcomes were significant intracranial injury and Need for Neurosurgical Intervention on CT. The secondary outcomes also considered in the model development and validation were All Injuries and All Intracranial Injuries. Predictor variables were identified using multiple variable logistic regression, and clinical decision rule models were developed in a split-sample derivation cohort and then tested in an independent validation cohort. RESULTS: Of 5776 patients, 233 (4.0%) had significant intracranial injury and an additional 104 (1.8%) met CT criteria for Need for Neurosurgical Intervention. The best performing model, the Florida Geriatric Head Trauma CT Clinical Decision Rule, assigns points based on several clinical variables. If the points totaled 25 or more, a CT scan is indicated. The included predictors were arrival via Emergency Medical Services (+30 points), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) <15 (+20 points), GCS <14 (+50 points), antiplatelet medications (+17 points), loss of consciousness (+16 points), signs of basilar skull fracture (+50 points), and headache (+20 points). Utilizing this clinical decision rule in the validation cohort, a point total ≥25 had a sensitivity and specificity of 100.0% (95% CI: 96.0-100) and 12.3% (95% CI: 10.9-13.8), respectively, for significant intracranial injury and Need for Neurosurgical Intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The Florida Geriatric Head Trauma CT Clinical Decision Rule has the potential to reduce unnecessary CT scans in older adults, without compromising safe emergency medicine practice.

Propensity weighted analysis of chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis agents in isolated severe traumatic brain injury: An EAST sponsored multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), clinicians must balance preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE) with the risk of intracranial hemorrhagic expansion (ICHE). We hypothesized that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) would not increase risk of ICHE or VTE as compared to unfractionated heparin (UH) in patients with severe TBI. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years of age with isolated severe TBI (AIS ≥ 3), admitted to 24 level I and II trauma centers between January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2020 and who received subcutaneous UH and LMWH injections for chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (VTEP) were included. Primary outcomes were VTE and ICHE after VTEP initiation. Secondary outcomes were mortality and neurosurgical interventions. Entropy balancing (EBAL) weighted competing risk or logistic regression models were estimated for all outcomes with chemical VTEP agent as the predictor of interest. RESULTS: 984 patients received chemical VTEP, 482 UH and 502 LMWH. Patients on LMWH more often had pre-existing conditions such as liver disease (UH vs LMWH 1.7 % vs. 4.4 %, p = 0.01), and coagulopathy (UH vs LMWH 0.4 % vs. 4.2 %, p < 0.001). There were no differences in VTE or ICHE after VTEP initiation. There were no differences in neurosurgical interventions performed. There were a total of 29 VTE events (3 %) in the cohort who received VTEP. A Cox proportional hazards model with a random effect for facility demonstrated no statistically significant differences in time to VTE across the two agents (p = 0.44). The LMWH group had a 43 % lower risk of overall ICHE compared to the UH group (HR = 0.57: 95 % CI = 0.32-1.03, p = 0.062), however was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In this multi-center analysis, patients who received LMWH had a decreased risk of ICHE, with no differences in VTE, ICHE after VTEP initiation and neurosurgical interventions compared to those who received UH. There were no safety concerns when using LMWH compared to UH. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeutic Care Management.

Compartment Syndrome Resulting From Improper Intraosseous Cannulation: A Case Report.

Obtaining adequate vascular access is imperative for effective resuscitative, therapeutic, and diagnostic interventions. The intraosseous (IO) route is indicated when immediate vascular access is needed, and standard central or peripheral intravenous (IV) access is unattainable or would delay therapy in a critical patient. We present a rare case of improper IO line placement in the right proximal tibia of a 30-year-old female involved in a motor vehicle collision, resulting in extravasation of blood products into the surrounding tissue and development of acute compartment syndrome. Emergency Medical Services was unable to obtain IV access in a timely manner, thus a right proximal tibia 45mm IO line was placed, and a unit of whole blood was given with a high-pressure infusor in the field. At the trauma center, the patient's right lower extremity was severely tense and edematous with no palpable right lower extremity pulses and no Doppler signals. Computed tomography revealed the IO catheter extending through both the proximal and distal cortices of the right tibia. Medial and lateral fasciotomy of the right lower extremity was performed in which all four compartments of the right lower leg were released and a significant hematoma was evacuated from the superficial posterior compartment. This case highlights the importance of IO access as a life-saving intervention while also underscoring the need to educate and familiarize pre-hospital and hospital healthcare personnel in delivering IO access so as to mitigate risks and improve outcomes for critically ill patients.