Screening and intervention for intimate partner violence at trauma centers and emergency departments: an evidence-based systematic review from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health issue with a substantial burden on society. Screening and intervention practices vary widely and there are no standard guidelines. Our objective was to review research on current practices for IPV prevention in emergency departments and trauma centers in the USA and provide evidenced-based recommendations. Methods: An evidence-based systematic review of the literature was conducted to address screening and intervention for IPV in adult trauma and emergency department patients. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology was used to determine the quality of evidence. Studies were included if they addressed our prespecified population, intervention, control, and outcomes questions. Case reports, editorials, and abstracts were excluded from review. Results: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. All seven were centered around screening for IPV; none addressed interventions when abuse was identified. Screening instruments varied across studies. Although it is unclear if one tool is more accurate than others, significantly more victims were identified when screening protocols were implemented compared with non-standardized approaches to identifying IPV victims. Conclusion: Overall, there were very limited data addressing the topic of IPV screening and intervention in emergency medical settings, and the quality of the evidence was low. With likely low risk and a significant potential benefit, we conditionally recommend implementation of a screening protocol to identify victims of IPV in adults treated in the emergency department and trauma centers. Although the purpose of screening would ultimately be to provide resources for victims, no studies that assessed distinct interventions met our inclusion criteria. Therefore, we cannot make specific recommendations related to IPV interventions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020219517.

Chitosan-based lifefoam improves survival in lethal noncompressible abdominal bleeding in swine.

BACKGROUND: In military combat settings, noncompressible closed cavity exsanguination is the leading cause of potentially survivable deaths, with no effective treatment available at point of injury. The aim of this study was to assess whether an expanding foam based on hydrophobically modified chitosan (hm-chitosan) may be used as a locally injectable hemostatic agent for the treatment of noncompressible bleeding in a swine model. METHODS: A closed-cavity, grade V hepato-portal injury was created in all animals resulting in massive noncoagulopathic, noncompressible bleeding. Animals received either fluid resuscitation alone (control, n = 8) or fluid resuscitation plus intraperitoneal hm-chitosan agent through an umbilical port (experimental, n = 18). The experiment was terminated at 180 minutes or death (defined as end-tidal CO2 <8mmHg or mean arterial pressure [MAP] <15mmHg), whichever came first. RESULTS: All animals had profound hypotension and experienced a near-arrest from hypovolemic shock (mean MAP = 24 mmHg at 10 minutes). Mean survival time was higher than 150 minutes in the experimental arm versus 27 minutes in the control arm (P < .001). Three-hour survival was 72% in the experimental group and 0% in the control group (P = .002). Hm-chitosan stabilized rising lactate, preventing acute lethal acidosis. MAP improved drastically after deployment of the hm-chitosan and was preserved at 60 mmHg throughout the 3 hours. Postmortem examination was performed in all animals and the hepatoportal injuries were anatomically similar. CONCLUSION: Intraperitoneal administration of hm-chitosan-based foam for massive, noncompressible abdominal bleeding improves survival in a lethal, closed-cavity swine model. Chronic safety and toxicity studies are required.

Isolated rib cage fractures in the elderly: Do all patients belong to the intensive care unit? A retrospective nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Western Trauma Association guidelines recommend admitting patients 65 years or older with two or more rib fractures diagnosed by chest radiograph to the intensive care unit (ICU). Increased use of computed tomography has led to identification of less severe, "occult" rib fractures. We aimed to evaluate current national trends in disposition of older patients with isolated rib cage fractures and to identify characteristics of patients initially admitted to the ward who failed ward management. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients 65 years or older with isolated two or more blunt rib cage fractures using the 2010 to 2016 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database was performed. Ward failure was defined as patients initially admitted to the ward with subsequent need for unplanned ICU admission or intubation. Multivariable analyses were derived to study the independent predictors of failure of ward management. Propensity score matching sub-analysis was used to assess outcomes in patients admitted to the ward versus ICU. RESULTS: There were 5,021 patients included in the analysis. Of these patients, 1,406 (28.0%) were admitted to the ICU. On multivariable analysis, age was an independent predictor of ICU admission. Of the 3,577 patients admitted directly to the ward, 38 (1.1%) patients required unplanned intubation or ICU admission. Independent predictors of failure of ward management included chronic renal failure (odds ratio [OR], 7.20; p ≤ 0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.50-20.76), traumatic pneumothorax (OR, 8.70; p = 0.008; 95% CI, 1.76-42.93), concurrent sternal fracture (OR, 6.52; p ≤ 0.001; 95% CI, 2.53-16.80), drug use disorder (OR, 6.58; p = 0.032; 95% CI, 1.17-36.96), and emergency department oxygen requirement or oxygen saturation less than 95% (OR, 2.38; p = 0.018; 95% CI, 1.16-4.86). Mortality was higher in patients with delayed ICU care versus patients with successful ward disposition (21.1% vs. 0.8%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the majority of isolated rib cage fractures in older patients are safely managed on the ward with exceedingly low ward failure rates (1.1%). Patients with failure of ward management have significantly higher mortality, and we have identified predictors of failing the ward. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, level IV; Prognostic III.