The Impact of the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit on Quaternary Care Accessibility for Rural Patients: A Comparative Analysis.

Background: Previous research suggests that patients from rural areas who are critically ill with complex medical needs or require time-sensitive subspecialty interventions face worse healthcare outcomes and delays in care when compared to those from urban areas. The critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) at our quaternary care center was established to expedite the transfer of critically ill patients or those who need time-sensitive intervention. This study investigates if disparities exist in treatments and outcomes among patients transferred to the CCRU from rural versus urban hospitals. Methods: This is a retrospective study of adult, nontrauma patients admitted to the CCRU via interhospital transfer from outside facilities from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Patients transferred from within our institution or with missing clinical data were excluded. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to measure the association between patients' demographic and clinical factors with in-hospital mortality. Results: We analyzed 1381 nontrauma patients, and 484 (35%) were from rural areas. Median age was 59 [47-69], and 629 (46%) were female. Median sequential organ failure assessment was 3 ([1-6], p=0.062) for both patients transferred from urban and rural hospitals. There was no significant difference between groups with respect to most demographic and clinical factors, as well as types of interventions after CCRU arrival, including emergent surgical interventions within 12 hours of arrival at the CCRU. Rural patients were more likely to be transferred for care by the acute care emergency surgery service than were patients from urban areas and were transferred over a significantly greater distance (difference of 53 kilometers (km), 95% CI: -58.9-51.7 km, P < 0.001). Transfer from rural areas was not associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.60, 1.36; P=0.63). Conclusion: Thirty-five percent of patients transferred to the CCRU came from rural areas, which house 25% of the state population of Maryland. Patients transferred from rural counties to the CCRU faced greater transport distances, but they received the same level of care upon arrival at the CCRU and had the same odds of in-hospital mortality as patients transferred from urban hospitals.

High-grade liver injuries with contrast extravasation managed initially with interventional radiology versus observation: A secondary analysis of a WTA multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: High-grade liver injuries with extravasation (HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav) are associated with morbidity/mortality. For low-grade injuries, an observation (OBS) first-strategy is beneficial over initial angiography (IR), however, it is unclear if OBS is safe for HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav. Therefore, we evaluated the management of HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients, hypothesizing IR patients will have decreased rates of operation and mortality. METHODS: HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients managed with initial OBS or IR were included. The primary outcome was need for operation. Secondary outcomes included liver-related complications (LRCs) and mortality. RESULTS: From 59 patients, 23 (39.0%) were managed with OBS and 36 (61.0%) with IR. 75% of IR patients underwent angioembolization, whereas 13% of OBS patients underwent any IR, all undergoing angioembolization. IR patients had an increased rate of operation (13.9% vs. 0%, p â€‹= â€‹0.049), but no difference in LRCs (44.4% vs. 43.5%) or mortality (5.6% vs. 8.7%) versus OBS patients (both p â€‹> â€‹0.05). CONCLUSION: Over 60% of patients were managed with IR initially. IR patients had an increased rate of operation yet similar rates of LRCs and mortality, suggesting initial OBS reasonable in appropriately selected HGLI â€‹+ â€‹Extrav patients.

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with traumatic brain injuries and severe respiratory failure: A single-center retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) can support trauma patients with severe respiratory failure. Use in traumatic brain injury (TBI) may raise concerns of worsening complications from intracranial bleeding. However, VV ECMO can rapidly correct hypoxemia and hypercarbia, possibly preventing secondary brain injury. We hypothesize that adult trauma patients with TBI on VV ECMO have comparable survival with trauma patients without TBI. METHODS: A single-center, retrospective cohort study involving review of electronic medical records of trauma admissions between July 1, 2014, and August 30, 2022, with discharge diagnosis of TBI who were placed on VV ECMO during their hospital course was performed. RESULTS: Seventy-five trauma patients were treated with VV ECMO; 36 (48%) had TBI. Of those with TBI, 19 (53%) had a hemorrhagic component. Survival was similar between patients with and without a TBI (72% vs. 64%, p = 0.45). Traumatic brain injury survivors had a higher admission Glasgow Coma Scale (7 vs. 3, p < 0.001) than nonsurvivors. Evaluation of prognostic scoring systems on initial head computed tomography demonstrated that TBI VV ECMO survivors were more likely to have a Rotterdam score of 2 (62% vs. 20%, p = 0.03) and no survivors had a Marshall score of ≥4. Twenty-nine patients (81%) had a repeat head computed tomography on VV ECMO with one incidence of expanding hematoma and one new focus of bleeding. Neither patient with a new/worsening bleed received anticoagulation. Survivors demonstrated favorable neurologic outcomes at discharge and outpatient follow-up, based on their mean Rancho Los Amigos Scale (6.5; SD, 1.2), median Cerebral Performance Category (2; interquartile range, 1-2), and median Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (7.5; interquartile range, 7-8). CONCLUSION: In this series, the majority of TBI patients survived and had good neurologic outcomes despite a low admission Glasgow Coma Scale. Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation may minimize secondary brain injury and may be considered in select patients with TBI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

An observation-first strategy for liver injuries with "blush" on computed tomography is safe and effective.

INTRODUCTION: The management of liver injuries in hemodynamically stable patients is variable and includes primary treatment strategies of observation (OBS), angiography (interventional radiology [IR]) with angioembolization (AE), or operative intervention (OR). We aimed to evaluate the management of patients with liver injuries with active extravasation on computed tomography (CT) imaging, hypothesizing that AE will have more complications without improving outcomes compared with OBS. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Patients who underwent CT within 2 hours after arrival with extravasation (e.g., blush) on imaging were included. Exclusion criteria included cirrhosis, nontraumatic hemorrhage, transfers from outside facilities, and pregnancy. No hemodynamic exclusion criteria were used. The primary outcome was liver-specific complications. Secondary outcomes include length of stay and mortality. Angioembolization patients were compared with patients treated without AE. Propensity score matching was used to match based on penetrating mechanism, liver injury severity, arrival vital signs, and early transfusion. RESULTS: Twenty-three centers enrolled 192 patients. Forty percent of patients (n = 77) were initially OBS. Eleven OBS patients (14%) failed nonoperative management and went to IR or OR. Sixty-one patients (32%) were managed with IR, and 42 (69%) of these had AE as an initial intervention. Fifty-four patients (28%) went to OR+/- IR. After propensity score matching (n = 34 per group), there was no difference in baseline characteristics between AE and OBS. The AE group experienced more complications with a higher rate of IR-placed drains for abscess or biloma (22% vs. 0%, p = 0.01) and an increased overall length of stay ( p = 0.01). No difference was noted in transfusions or mortality. CONCLUSION: Observation is highly effective with few requiring additional interventions. Angioembolization was associated with higher rate of secondary drain placement for abscesses or biloma. Given this, a trial of OBS and avoidance of empiric AE may be warranted in hemodynamically stable, liver-injured patient with extravasation on CT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

Is the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit Sustainable: A 5-Year Experience of a Beneficial and Novel Model.

Background: The 6-bed critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) is a unique and specialized intensive care unit (ICU) that streamlines the interhospital transfer (IHT-transfer between different hospitals) process for a wide range of patients with critical illness or time-sensitive disease. Previous studies showed the unit successfully increased the number of ICU admissions while reducing the time of transfer in the first year of its establishment. However, its sustainability is unknown. Methods: This was a descriptive retrospective analysis of adult, non-trauma patients who were transferred to an 800-bed quaternary medical center. Patients transferred to our medical center between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 were eligible. We used interrupted time series (ITS) and descriptive analyses to describe the trend and compare the transfer process between patients who were transferred to the CCRU versus those transferred to other adult inpatient units. Results: From 2014 to 2018, 50,599 patients were transferred to our medical center; 31,582 (62%) were non-trauma adults. Compared with the year prior to the opening of the CCRU, ITS showed a significant increase in IHT after the establishment of the CCRU. The CCRU received a total of 7,788 (25%) IHTs during this period or approximately 20% of total transfers per year. Most transfers (41%) occurred via ground. Median and interquartile range [IQR] of transfer times to other ICUs (156 [65-1027] minutes) were longer than the CCRU (46 [22-139] minutes, P < 0.001). For the CCRU, the most common accepting services were cardiac surgery (16%), neurosurgery (11%), and emergency general surgery (10%). Conclusions: The CCRU increases the overall number of transfers to our institution, improves patient access to specialty care while decreasing transfer time, and continues to be a sustainable model over time. Additional research is needed to determine if transferring patients to the CCRU would continue to improve patients' outcomes and hospital revenue.

Mortality Risk Assessment in COVID-19 Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

BACKGROUND: A life-threatening complication of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) refractory to conventional management. Venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (VV-ECMO) is used to support patients with ARDS in whom conventional management fails. Scoring systems to predict mortality in VV-ECMO remain unvalidated in COVID-19 ARDS. This report describes a large single-center experience with VV-ECMO in COVID-19 and assesses the utility of standard risk calculators. METHODS: A retrospective review of a prospective database of all patients with COVID-19 who underwent VV-ECMO cannulation between March 15 and June 27, 2020 at a single academic center was performed. Demographic, clinical, and ECMO characteristics were collected. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; survivor and nonsurvivor cohorts were compared by using univariate and bivariate analyses. RESULTS: Forty patients who had COVID-19 and underwent ECMO were identified. Of the 33 patients (82.5%) in whom ECMO had been discontinued at the time of analysis, 18 patients (54.5%) survived to hospital discharge, and 15 (45.5%) died during ECMO. Nonsurvivors presented with a statistically significant higher Prediction of Survival on ECMO Therapy (PRESET)-Score (mean ± SD, 8.33 ± 0.8 vs 6.17 ± 1.8; P = .001). The PRESET score demonstrated accurate mortality prediction. All patients with a PRESET-Score of 6 or lowers survived, and a score of 7 or higher was associated with a dramatic increase in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that favorable outcomes are possible in patients with COVID-19 who undergo ECMO at high-volume centers. This study demonstrated an association between the PRESET-Score and survival in patients with COVID-19 who underwent VV-ECMO. Standard risk calculators may aid in appropriate selection of patients with COVID-19 ARDS for ECMO.

Surgical Intensivist-Led Training in Critical Care Ultrasound Improves Performance.

BACKGROUND: Critical care ultrasound (CCUS) is essential in modern practice, with CCUS including cardiac and noncardiac ultrasound. The most effective CCUS training is unknown, with a diverse skill set and knowledge needed for competence. The objective of this project was to evaluate the effect of a surgical intensivist-led training program on CCUS competence in critical care fellows. METHODS: This was a single institution retrospective review from 2016 to 2018 at the R Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center. Our yearlong surgical intensivist (SI)-led CCUS training program for critical care fellows includes a daylong CCUS training class, CCUS lectures, a CCUS rotation, and bedside CCUS instruction during rotations. Fellows take a knowledge test and skills test before (pretest) and after (posttest) this program. Critical care ultrasound skill was graded on a scale from 1-5, with 4 (minimal help) or 5 (no help) considered competent. Emergency medicine, surgery, and medicine-trained critical care fellows were included. RESULTS: Forty-two critical care fellows were included. Mean posttest scores increased significantly for 21/22 (96%) of skills tested and for 14/30 (47%) of knowledge questions compared to pretest scores. The mean composite skill score increased from 3.25 to 4.82 from pretest to posttest (P < .001). The mean composite knowledge score increased from 60% to 80% from pretest to posttest (P < .001). CONCLUSION: SI-led training improves CCUS competence and knowledge despite the breadth of CCUS.

Echo is a good, not perfect, measure of cardiac output in critically ill surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Compared with a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC), transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) has been shown to have good agreement in cardiac output (CO) measurement in nonsurgical populations. Our hypothesis is that the feasibility and accuracy of CO measured by TTE (CO-TTE), relative to CO measured by PAC thermodilution (CO-PAC), is different in surgical intensive care unit patients (SP) and nonsurgical patients (NSP). METHODS: Surgical patients with PAC for hemodynamic monitoring and NSP undergoing right heart catheterization were prospectively enrolled. Cardiac output was measured by CO-PAC and CO-TTE. Pearson coefficients were used to assess correlation. Bland-Altman analysis was used to determine agreement. RESULTS: Over 18 months, 84 patients were enrolled (51 SP, 33 NSP). Cardiac output TTE could be measured in 65% (33/51) of SP versus 79% (26/33) of NSP; p = 0.17. Inability to measure the left ventricular outflow tract diameter was the primary reason for failure in both groups; 94% (17/18) in SP versus 86% (6/7) NSP; p = 0.47. Velocity time integral could be measured in all patients. In both groups, correlation between PAC and TTE measurement was strong; SP (r = 0.76; p < 0.0001), NSP (r = 0.86; p < 0.0001). Bland-Altman analysis demonstrated bias of -0.1 L/min, limits of agreement of -2.5 and +2.3 L/min, percentage error (PE) of 40% for SP, and bias of +0.4 L/min, limits of agreement of -1.8 and +2.5 L/min, and PE of 40% for NSP. CONCLUSION: There was strong correlation and moderate agreement between TTE and PAC in both SP and NSP. In both patient populations, inability to measure the left ventricular outflow tract diameter was a limiting factor. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic tests or criteria, level III.

Infection after penetrating brain injury-An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study oral presentation at the 32nd annual meeting of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, January 15-19, 2019, in Austin, Texas.

BACKGROUND: Fatality rates following penetrating traumatic brain injury (pTBI) are extremely high and survivors are often left with significant disability. Infection following pTBI is associated with worse morbidity. The modern rates of central nervous system infections (INF) in civilian survivors are unknown. This study sought to determine the rate of and risk factors for INF following pTBI and to determine the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis. METHODS: Seventeen institutions submitted adult patients with pTBI and survival of more than 72 hours from 2006 to 2016. Patients were stratified by the presence or absence of infection and the use or omission of prophylactic antibiotics. Study was powered at 85% to detect a difference in infection rate of 5%. Primary endpoint was the impact of prophylactic antibiotics on INF. Mantel-Haenszel χ and Wilcoxon's rank-sum tests were used to compare categorical and nonparametric variables. Significance greater than p = 0.2 was included in a logistic regression adjusted for center. RESULTS: Seven hundred sixty-three patients with pTBI were identified over 11 years. 7% (n = 51) of patients developed an INF. Sixty-six percent of INF patients received prophylactic antibiotics. Sixty-two percent of all patients received one dose or greater of prophylactic antibiotics and 50% of patients received extended antibiotics. Degree of dural penetration did not appear to impact the incidence of INF (p = 0.8) nor did trajectory through the oropharynx (p = 0.18). Controlling for other variables, there was no statistically significant difference in INF with the use of prophylactic antibiotics (p = 0.5). Infection was higher in patients with intracerebral pressure monitors (4% vs. 12%; p = <0.001) and in patients with surgical intervention (10% vs. 3%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There is no reduction in INF with prophylactic antibiotics in pTBI. Surgical intervention and invasive intracerebral pressure monitoring appear to be risk factors for INF regardless of prophylactic use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level IV.