The geriatric trauma hospitalist service: An analysis of a management strategy for injured older adults.

BACKGROUND: Management of geriatric trauma patients requires balancing chronic comorbidities with acute injuries. We developed a care model in which patients are managed by hospitalists with trauma-centered education and hypothesized that clinical outcomes would be similar to outcomes in patients primarily managed by trauma surgeons. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of trauma patients aged ≥65 from January 2020 to December 2021. Groups were defined by admitting service: trauma surgery service (TSS) or geriatric trauma hospitalist service (GTHS). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Regression analyses and inverse probability treatment weighted (IPTW) propensity score (PS) analyses were performed to determine the association between admitting service and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1004 patients were eligible for inclusion-580 GTHS and 424 TSS admissions. GTHS patients were older (82 vs. 74, p < 0.001), more likely to have suffered blunt trauma (99.5% vs. 95%, p < 0.001), more likely to have comorbidities (91.2% vs. 87%, p < 0.001), had higher Charlson Comorbidity Indexes (CCIs), and had lower median injury severity scores (9 vs. 13, p < 0.001). Rates of mortality, delirium, 30-day readmission, and overall complications were low and similar between groups. While TSS patients were likely to be discharged home, GTHS had more discharges to skilled nursing facilities and longer length of stay (LOS). On multivariable analysis adjusted for age, ISS, CCI, and sex, patients admitted to GTHS had lower odds of death with an odds ratio of 0.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.02-0.75, p = 0.03) when compared to TSS. On IPTW PS analysis, patients admitted to GTHS had similar odds of death with an odds ratio of 0.3 (95% CI 0.06-1.6, p = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Protocolized admission criteria to a GTHS resulted in similar low mortality rates but longer LOS when compared to patients admitted to a TSS. This care model may inform other trauma centers in developing their strategies for managing the increasing volume of vulnerable injured older adults.

Material Flow Analysis and Occupational Exposure Assessment in Additive Manufacturing End-of-Life Material Management.

Additive manufacturing (AM) offers a variety of material manufacturing techniques for a wide range of applications across many industries. Most efforts at process optimization and exposure assessment for AM are centered around the manufacturing process. However, identifying the material allocation and potentially harmful exposures in end-of-life (EoL) management is equally crucial to mitigating environmental releases and occupational health impacts within the AM supply chain. This research tracks the allocation and potential releases of AM EoL materials within the US through a material flow analysis. Of the generated AM EoL materials, 58% are incinerated, 33% are landfilled, and 9% are recycled by weight. The generated data set was then used to examine the theoretical occupational hazards during AM EoL material management practices through generic exposure scenario assessment, highlighting the importance of ventilation and personal protective equipment at all stages of AM material management. This research identifies pollution sources, offering policymakers and stakeholders insights to shape pollution prevention and worker safety strategies within the US AM EoL management pathways.

Hypofibrinogenemia following injury in 186 children and adolescents: identification of the phenotype, current outcomes, and potential for intervention.

Objectives: Recent studies evaluating fibrinogen replacement in trauma, along with newly available fibrinogen-based products, has led to an increase in debate on where products such as cryoprecipitate belong in our resuscitation strategies. We set out to define the phenotype and outcomes of those with hypofibrinogenemia and evaluate whether fibrinogen replacement should have a role in the initial administration of massive transfusion. Methods: All patients <18 years of age presenting to our trauma center 11/17-4/21 were reviewed. We then evaluated all patients who received emergency-release and massive transfusion protocol (MTP) products. Patients were defined as hypofibrinogenemic (HYPOFIB) if admission fibrinogen <150 or rapid thrombelastography (r-TEG) angle <60 degrees. Our analysis sought to define risk factors for presenting with HYPOFIB, the impact on outcomes, and whether early replacement improved mortality. Results: 4169 patients were entered into the trauma registry, with 926 level 1 trauma activations, of which 186 patients received emergency-release blood products during this time; 1%, 3%, and 10% were HYPOFIB, respectively. Of the 186 patients of interest, 18 were HYPOFIB and 168 were non-HYPOFIB. The HYPOFIB patients were significantly younger, had lower field and arrival Glasgow Coma Scale, had higher head Abbreviated Injury Scale, arrived with worse global coagulopathy, and died from brain injury. Non-HYPOFIB patients were more likely to have (+)focused assessment for the sonography of trauma on arrival, sustained severe abdominal injuries, and die from hemorrhage. 12% of patients who received early cryoprecipitate (0-2 hours) had higher mortality by univariate analysis (55% vs 31%, p=0.045), but no difference on multivariate analysis (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.81, p=0.221). Those receiving early cryoprecipitate who survived after pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) admission had lower PICU fibrinogen and r-TEG alpha-angle values. Conclusion: In pediatric trauma, patients with hypofibrinogenemia on admission are most likely younger and to have sustained severe brain injury, with an associated mortality of over 80%. Given the absence of bleeding-related deaths in HYPOFIB patients, this study does not provide evidence for the empiric use of cryoprecipitate in the initial administration of a massive transfusion protocol. Level of Evidence: Level III - Therapeutic/Care Management.

Review of generic scenario environmental release and occupational exposure models used in chemical risk assessment.

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is required to determine whether a new chemical substance poses an unreasonable risk to human health or the environment before the chemical is manufactured in or imported into the United States. This manuscript provides a review of the process used to evaluate the risk associated with a chemical based on the scenarios and models used in the evaluation. Specifically, the Generic Scenarios and Emission Scenario Documents developed by the USEPA were reviewed, along with background documentation prepared by USEPA to identify the core elements of the environmental release and occupational exposure scenarios used to assess the risk of the chemical being evaluated. Additionally, this contribution provides an overview of methods used to model occupational exposures and environmental releases as part of the chemical evaluation process used in other jurisdictions, along with work being performed to improve these models. Finally, the alternative methods to evaluate occupational exposures and environmental releases that may be used as part of the decision-making process regarding a chemical are identified. The contribution provides a path forward for reducing the time required and improving the chemical evaluation of the unreasonable risk determination regarding the manufacture or import of a chemical.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and resuscitative thoracotomy are associated with similar outcomes in traumatic cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a minimally invasive alternative to resuscitative thoracotomy (RT) for patients with hemorrhagic shock. However, the potential benefits of this approach remain subject of debate. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of REBOA and RT for traumatic cardiac arrest. METHODS: A planned secondary analysis of the United States Department of Defense-funded Emergent Truncal Hemorrhage Control study was performed. Between 2017 and 2018, a prospective observational study of noncompressible torso hemorrhage was conducted at six Level I trauma centers. Patients were dichotomized by REBOA or RT, and baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: A total of 454 patients were enrolled in the primary study, of which 72 patients were included in the secondary analysis (26 underwent REBOA and 46 underwent resuscitative thoracotomy). Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta patients were older, had a greater body mass index, and were less likely to be the victims of penetrating trauma. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta patients also had less severe abdominal injuries and more severe extremity injuries, although the overall injury severity scores were similar. There was no difference in mortality between groups (88% vs. 93%, p = 0.767). However, time to aortic occlusion was longer in REBOA patients (7 vs. 4 minutes, p = 0.001) and they required more transfusions of red blood cells (4.5 vs. 2.5 units, p = 0.007) and plasma (3 vs. 1 unit, p = 0.032) in the emergency department. After adjusted analysis, mortality remained similar between groups (RR, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.12, p = 0.304). CONCLUSION: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta and RT were associated with similar survival after traumatic cardiac arrest, although time to successful aortic occlusion was longer in the REBOA group. Further research is needed to better define the role of REBOA in trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Surgical Rib Fixation to Nonoperative Management in Severe Chest Wall Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) to nonoperative management in severe chest wall injury. BACKGROUND: SSRF has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with clinical flail chest and respiratory failure. However, the effect of SSRF outcomes in severe chest wall injuries without clinical flail chest is unknown. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial comparing SSRF to nonoperative management in severe chest wall injury, defined as: (1) a radiographic flail segment without clinical flail or (2) ≥5 consecutive rib fractures or (3) any rib fracture with bicortical displacement. Randomization was stratified by the unit of admission as a proxy for injury severity. Primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, ventilator days, opioid exposure, mortality, and incidences of pneumonia and tracheostomy. Quality of life at 1, 3, and 6 months was measured using the EQ-5D-5L survey. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were randomized in an intention-to-treat analysis (usual care = 42, SSRF = 42). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The numbers of total fractures, displaced fractures, and segmental fractures per patient were also similar, as were the incidences of displaced fractures and radiographic flail segments. Hospital LOS was greater in the SSRF group. ICU LOS and ventilator days were similar. After adjusting for the stratification variable, hospital LOS remained greater in the SSRF group (RR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.17-1.88). ICU LOS (RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.94-2.92) and ventilator days (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.61--3.69) remained similar. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with displaced fractures were more likely to have LOS outcomes similar to their usual care counterparts. At 1 month, SSRF patients had greater impairment in mobility [3 (2-3) vs 2 (1-2), P = 0.012] and self-care [2 (1-2) vs 2 (2-3), P = 0.034] dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L. CONCLUSIONS: In severe chest wall injury, even in the absence of clinical flail chest, the majority of patients still reported moderate to extreme pain and impairment of usual physical activity at one month. SSRF increased hospital LOS and did not provide any quality of life benefit for up to 6 months.

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated: An evaluation of futility cut points in massive transfusion.

BACKGROUND: Following COVID and the subsequent blood shortage, several investigators evaluated futility cut points in massive transfusion. We hypothesized that early aggressive use of damage-control resuscitation, including whole blood (WB), would demonstrate that these cut points of futility were significantly underestimating potential survival among patients receiving >50 U of blood in the first 4 hours. METHODS: Adult trauma patients admitted from November 2017 to October 2021 who received emergency-release blood products in prehospital or emergency department setting were included. Deaths within 30 minutes of arrival were excluded. Total blood products were defined as total red blood cell, plasma, and WB in the field and in the first 4 hours after arrival. Patients were first divided into those receiving ≤50 or >50 U of blood in the first 4 hours. We then evaluated patients by whether they received any WB or received only component therapy. Thirty-day survival was evaluated for all included patients. RESULTS: A total of 2,299 patients met the inclusion criteria (2,043 in ≤50 U, 256 in >50 U groups). While there were no differences in age or sex, the >50 U group was more likely to sustain penetrating injury (47% vs. 30%, p < 0.05). Patients receiving >50 U of blood had lower field and arrival blood pressure and larger prehospital and emergency department resuscitation volumes ( p < 0.05). Patients in the >50 U group had lower survival than those in the ≤50 cohort (31% vs. 79%; p < 0.05). Patients who received WB (n = 1,291) had 43% increased odds of survival compared with those who received only component therapy (n = 1,008) (1.09-1.87, p = 0.009) and higher 30-day survival at transfusion volumes >50 U. CONCLUSION: Patient survival rates in patients receiving >50 U of blood in the first 4 hours of care are as high as 50% to 60%, with survival still at 15% to 25% after 100 U. While responsible blood stewardship is critical, futility should not be declared based on high transfusion volumes alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Dysphagia is associated with worse clinical outcomes in geriatric trauma patients.

Introduction: Dysphagia is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization in hospitalized patients, but studies on outcomes in geriatric trauma patients with dysphagia are limited. We hypothesized that geriatric trauma patients with dysphagia would have worse clinical outcomes compared with those without dysphagia. Methods: Patients with and without dysphagia were compared in a single-center retrospective cohort study of trauma patients aged ≥65 years admitted in 2019. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, discharge destination, and unplanned ICU admission. Multivariable regression analyses and Bayesian analyses adjusted for age, Injury Severity Score, mechanism of injury, and gender were performed to determine the association between dysphagia and clinical outcomes. Results: Of 1706 geriatric patients, 69 patients (4%) were diagnosed with dysphagia. Patients with dysphagia were older with a higher Injury Severity Score. Increased odds of mortality did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.4, p=0.30). Dysphagia was associated with increased odds of unplanned ICU admission (OR 4.6, 95% CI 2.0 to 9.6, p≤0.001) and non-home discharge (OR 5.2, 95% CI 2.4 to 13.9, p≤0.001), as well as increased ICU LOS (OR 4.9, 95% CI 3.1 to 8.1, p≤0.001), and hospital LOS (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7 to 2.6, p≤0.001). On Bayesian analysis, dysphagia was associated with an increased probability of longer hospital and ICU LOS, unplanned ICU admission, and non-home discharge. Conclusions: Clinically apparent dysphagia is associated with poor outcomes, but it remains unclear if dysphagia represents a modifiable risk factor or a marker of underlying frailty, leading to poor outcomes. This study highlights the importance of screening protocols for dysphagia in geriatric trauma patients to possibly mitigate adverse outcomes. Level of evidence: Level III.

The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index as a predictor of complications in geriatric trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is associated with increased morbidity and mortality after trauma. The Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index (GNRI) is a validated scoring system used to predict the risk of complications related to malnutrition in nontrauma patients. We hypothesized that GNRI is predictive of worse outcomes in geriatric trauma patients. METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study of trauma patients 65 years or older admitted in 2019. Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index was calculated based on admission albumin level and ratio of actual body weight to ideal body weight. Groups were defined as major risk (GNRI <82), moderate risk (GNRI 82-91), low risk (GNRI 92-98), and no risk (GNRI >98). The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventilator days, intensive care unit length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, discharge home, sepsis, pneumonia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the association between GNRI risk category and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 513 patients were identified for analysis. Median age was 78 years (71-86 years); 24 patients (4.7%) were identified as major risk, 66 (12.9%) as moderate risk, 72 (14%) as low risk, and 351 (68.4%) as no risk. Injury Severity Scores and Charlson Comorbidity Indexes were similar between all groups. Patients in the no risk group had decreased rates of death, and after adjusting for Injury Severity Score, age, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, the no risk group had decreased odds of death (odds ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.41) compared with the major risk group. The no risk group also had fewer infectious complications including sepsis and pneumonia, and shorter hospital LOS and were more likely to be discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: Major GNRI risk is associated with increased mortality and infectious complications in geriatric trauma patients. Further studies should target interventional strategies for those at highest risk based on GNRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

The Inflection Point Model: A Model to Explore the Hidden Burdens of Non-Cancerous Genitourinary Conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To propose a conceptual model to identify points along the condition course where actions or inaction affect downstream burdens of non-cancerous genitourinary conditions (NCGUC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) convened an interdisciplinary meeting to comprehensively consider the burdens of NCGUCs. Subsequently, the authors met monthly to conceptualize the model. RESULTS: Inflection points (IP) describe time points during a condition course that are sensitive to change. Our proposed Inflection Point Model (IPM) helps conceptualize burden/benefit trade-offs in any related decision and provides a platform to identify the downstream aggregate burden of a NCGUC across multiple socio-ecological levels at a single time point, which may be summed across the condition course to measure cumulative burden. Two personae demonstrate the utility of this model to better understand impacts of 2 common NCGUCs. CONCLUSION: The IPM may be applied in multiple contexts: narrowly to explore burden of a single NCGUC at a single IP; or more broadly, to address multiple conditions, multiple IPs, or multiple domains/levels of social ecology. Applying the IPM may entail combining population data describing prevalence of NCGUCs, associated behaviors, and resulting outcome patterns that can be combined with suitable mathematical models to quantify aggregate and cumulative burden. The IPM challenges stakeholders to expand from the individual to include broader levels of social ecology. Application of the IPM will undoubtedly identify data gaps and research needs that must be fulfilled to delineate and address the burden of NCGUCs.

Prospective Observational Evaluation of the ER-REBOA Catheter at 6 U.S. Trauma Centers.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current use of the ER-REBOA catheter and associated outcomes and complications. INTRODUCTION: Noncompressible truncal hemorrhage is the leading cause of potentially preventable death in trauma patients. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a novel strategy to obtain earlier temporary hemorrhage control, supporting cardiac, and cerebral perfusion before definitive hemostasis. METHODS: Prospective, observational study conducted at 6 Level 1 Trauma Centers over 12-months. Inclusion criteria were age >15 years of age with evidence of truncal hemorrhage below the diaphragm and decision for emergent hemorrhage control intervention within 60 minutes of arrival. REBOA details, demographics, mechanism of injury, complications, and outcomes were collected. RESULTS: A total of 8166 patients were screened for enrollment. In 75, REBOA was utilized for temporary hemorrhage control. Blunt injury occurred in 80% with a median injury severity score (ISS) 34 (21, 43). Forty-seven REBOAs were placed in Zone 1 and 28 in Zone 3. REBOA inflation increased systolic blood pressure from 67 (40, 83) mm Hg to 108 (90, 128) mm Hg 5 minutes after inflation (P = 0.02). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was ongoing during REBOA insertion in 17 patients (26.6%) and 10 patients (58.8%) had return of spontaneous circulation after REBOA inflation. The procedural complication rate was 6.6%. Overall mortality was 52%. CONCLUSION: REBOA can be used in blunt and penetrating trauma patients, including those in arrest. Balloon inflation uniformly improved hemodynamics and was associated with a 59% rate of return of spontaneous circulation for patients in arrest. Use of the ER-REBOA catheter is technically safe with a low procedural complication rate.

Damage control laparotomy in trauma: a pilot randomized controlled trial. The DCL trial.

BACKGROUND: Although widely used in treating severe abdominal trauma, damage control laparotomy (DCL) has not been assessed in any randomized controlled trial. We conducted a pilot trial among patients for whom our surgeons had equipoise and hypothesized that definitive laparotomy (DEF) would reduce major abdominal complications (MAC) or death within 30 days compared with DCL. METHODS: Eligible patients undergoing emergency laparotomy were randomized during surgery to DCL or DEF from July 2016 to May 2019. The primary outcome was MAC or death within 30 days. Prespecified frequentist and Bayesian analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 489 eligible patients, 39 patients were randomized (DCL 18, DEF 21) and included. Groups were similar in demographics and mechanism of injury. The DEF group had a higher Injury Severity Score (DEF median 34 (IQR 20, 43) vs DCL 29 (IQR 22, 41)) and received more prerandomization blood products (DEF median red blood cells 8 units (IQR 6, 11) vs DCL 6 units (IQR 2, 11)). In unadjusted analyses, the DEF group had more MAC or death within 30 days (1.71, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.63, p=0.159) due to more deaths within 30 days (DEF 33% vs DCL 0%, p=0.010). Adjustment for Injury Severity Score and prerandomization blood products reduced the risk ratio for MAC or death within 30 days to 1.54 (95% CI 0.71 to 3.32, p=0.274). The Bayesian probability that DEF increased MAC or death within 30 days was 85% in unadjusted analyses and 66% in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: The findings of our single center pilot trial were inconclusive. Outcomes were not worse with DCL and, in fact, may have been better. A randomized clinical trial of DCL is feasible and a larger, multicenter trial is needed to compare DCL and DEF for patients with severe abdominal trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Can RH+ whole blood be safely used as an alternative to RH- product? An analysis of efforts to improve the sustainability of a hospital's low titer group O whole blood program.

BACKGROUND: Low-titer group O whole blood (LTO-WB) has recently gained popularity in trauma centers for the acute resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock. However, limited supplies of Rh- product prevent implementation and strain sustainability at many trauma centers. We set out to identify whether Rh+ LTO-WB could be safely substituted for RH- product, regardless of patient's Rh status. METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board approval, information on all trauma patients receiving prehospital or emergency department transfusion of uncrossed, emergency release LTO-WB (11/17-10/19) were evaluated. Patients were first divided into those who received Rh- versus Rh+ product, the assessed by Rh of the recipient. Serial hemolysis panels, transfusion reactions, and outcomes were compared. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-seven consecutive trauma patients received emergency release LTO-WB. Of these, 448 received Rh+ product, while 189 received Rh- LTO-WB. Patients receiving Rh+ product were more likely to be men (81 vs. 70%) and have lower field blood pressure (median 99 vs. 109) and GCS (median 7 vs. 12); all p < 0.05. There were no differences in blood product volume, hemolysis laboratories, transfusion reactions, complications, or survival. We then separated patients by Rh status (577 were Rh+, 70 were Rh-). Rh- patients were older (median age 54 vs. 39), more likely to be women (57 vs. 26%), and more likely to have sustained blunt trauma than their Rh+ counterparts (92 vs. 70%); all p < 0.05. There were no differences in hemolysis laboratories, transfusion reactions, complications, or survival between Rh+ and Rh- patients, regardless of Rh product received. CONCLUSION: When Rh- whole blood is unavailable or in short supply, Rh+ LTO-WB appears to be a safe alternative for the resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock in both Rh+ and Rh- patients. Use of Rh+ product may help trauma centers incorporate LTO-WB into their hospital and improve sustainability of such programs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level III.

Predicting success of resuscitative endovascular occlusion of the aorta: Timing supersedes variable techniques in predicting patient survival.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is used for temporary aortic occlusion of trauma patients in the management of noncompressible hemorrhage. Previous studies have focused on how to properly perform REBOA in the trauma environment to improve survival rates, but high-grade evidence defining the ideal patient population does not yet exist. This post hoc analysis of the Emergent Truncal Hemorrhage Control Study seeks to identify the most important clinical factors for physicians to consider when selecting for REBOA candidates and their potential survival following REBOA. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a large, multicenter, prospective observational study conducted at six level 1 trauma centers, 2017 to 2018, was performed. An onsite data collector documented all time points for REBOA patients since admission. Candidate predictors were demographics; injury severity; physiology preprocedure, during procedure, and postprocedure; cardiopulmonary resuscitation; and REBOA-specific variables (time to procedure, procedure-related time intervals, access site, technique, sheath size, catheter length, balloon volume, deployment zone). Predictive models for survival at three different time points along the trauma triage and REBOA process timeline ("Admission," "REBOA Initiation," and "Postaortic Occlusion") were devised by logistic regression. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients had REBOA placement. The Admission model selected age, Glasgow Coma Scale, and admission systolic blood pressure as significant predictors of survival (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.94). The REBOA Initiation and Postaortic Occlusion models selected age, Glasgow Coma Scale, and the systolic blood pressure measured just before balloon inflation as predictors for survival (AUROC, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.78-0.97] and AUROC, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.81-0.99], respectively). No REBOA procedural variables were identified as predictors of patient survival. CONCLUSION: Only patient-specific criteria of age, neurologic status, and severity of shock predicted survival. The hemodynamic stability of the patient at the time REBOA is initiated is more important than how REBOA is initiated. These findings suggest that earlier preparation for REBOA placement may be a key to improved survival. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level IV.

Determination of optimal deployment strategy for REBOA in patients with non-compressible hemorrhage below the diaphragm.

BACKGROUND: Non-compressible truncal hemorrhage (NCTH) is the leading cause of preventable death after trauma. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) achieves temporary hemorrhage control, supporting cardiac and cerebral perfusion prior to definitive hemostasis. Aortic zone selection algorithms vary among institutions. We evaluated the efficacy of an algorithm for REBOA use. METHODS: A multicenter prospective, observational study conducted at six level 1 trauma centers over 12 months. Inclusion criteria were age >15 years with evidence of infradiaphragmatic NCTH needing emergent hemorrhage control within 60 min of ED arrival. An algorithm characterized by the results of focused assessment with sonography in trauma and pelvic X-ray was assessed post hoc for efficacy in a cohort of patients receiving REBOA. RESULTS: Of the 8166 patients screened, 78 patients had a REBOA placed. 21 patients were excluded, leaving 57 patients for analysis. The algorithm ensures REBOA deployment proximal to hemorrhage source to control bleeding in 98.2% of cases and accurately predicts the optimal REBOA zone in 78.9% of cases. If the algorithm was violated, bleeding was optimally controlled in only 43.8% (p=0.01). Three (75.0%) of the patients that received an inappropriate zone 1 REBOA died, two from multiple organ failure (MOF). All three patients that died with an inappropriate zone 3 REBOA died from exsanguination. DISCUSSION: This algorithm ensures proximal hemorrhage control and accurately predicts the primary source of hemorrhage. We propose a new algorithm that will be more inclusive. A zone 3 REBOA should not be performed when a zone 1 is indicated by the algorithm as 100% of these patients exsanguinated. MOF, perhaps from visceral ischemia in patients with an inappropriate zone 1 REBOA, may have been prevented with zone 3 placement or limited zone 1 occlusion time. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Predictors for Direct to Operating Room Admission in Severe Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Protocols for expediting critical trauma patients directly from the helipad to the operating room tend to vary by center, rely heavily on physician gestalt, and lack supporting evidence. We evaluated a population of severely injured trauma patients with the aim of determining objective factors associated with the need for immediate surgical intervention. METHODS: All highest-activation trauma patients transported by air ambulance between 1/1/16 and 12/31/17 were enrolled retrospectively. Transfer, pediatric, isolated burn, and isolated head trauma patients were excluded. Patients who underwent emergency general surgery within 30 min of arrival without the aid of cross-sectional imaging were compared to the remainder of the cohort. RESULTS: Of the 863 patients who were enrolled, 85 (10%) spent less than 30 min in the emergency department (ED) before undergoing an emergency operation. The remaining 778 patients (90%) formed the comparison group. The ED ≤ 30 min group had a higher percentage of penetrating injuries, lower blood pressure, and was more likely to have a positive FAST exam. The "Direct to Operating Room" (DTOR) score is a predictive scoring system devised to identify patients most likely to benefit from bypassing the ED. The odds ratio of emergency operation within 30 min of hospital arrival increased by 2.71 (95% confidence interval 2.23-3.29; P < 0.001) for every 1-point increase in DTOR score. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients with profound hypotension or acidosis and positive FAST were more likely to require surgery within 30 min of hospital presentation. Use of a scoring system may allow early identification of these patients in the prehospital setting by nonphysician providers.

The Impact of Rapid Infuser Use on the Platelet Count, Platelet Function, and Hemostatic Potential of Whole Blood.

BACKGROUND: Rapid infusion pumps employing filters, roller pumps, and heat exchangers for the administration of blood products are not approved for platelets or cryoprecipitate. This technology may decrease platelet count and degrade coagulation proteins. The effect of rapid infusers on the hemostatic potential of whole blood is unknown. METHODS: Five units of low titer O+ whole blood were obtained from anonymous donors. Each unit was subjected to infusion by five different techniques: (1) gravity infusion without a filter, (2) gravity infusion with a filter, (3) Belmont rapid infuser at 70 mL/min, (4) Belmont at 100 mL/min, and (5) pressurized infusion with a pneumatic pressure bag and filter. After infusion, platelet count, platelet function, thrombin generation, and hemostatic potential were measured for each aliquot. Infusion techniques were compared, using gravity infusion without a filter as the control. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in platelet count from baseline (168,000) in the BELMONT70 (97,000) and BELMONT100 (94,000) groups (P < 0.05). However, there were no differences in platelet function (all P > 0.20). While there were no differences in thromboelastography parameters between control and infusion models (all P > 0.20), there were significant increases in thrombin generation parameters by CAT in both the BELMONT70 and BELMONT100 groups (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a rapid infuser decreases the platelet count of WB but does not decrease platelet function or overall hemostatic potential. In fact, thrombin generation and thrombin potential are actually increased. Rapid infusers are safe for the transfusion of WB.

Catheter distances and balloon inflation volumes for the ER-REBOA™ catheter: A prospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an adjunct used to temporize uncontrolled abdominopelvic hemorrhage. No published clinical data exist that describe average catheter lengths or balloon fill volumes necessary to occlude the aorta. METHODS: A prospective, single-institution registry was queried for patients who underwent placement of a Prytime ER-REBOA™ catheter. Demographic, catheter, hemodynamic, and morphometric data were measured. Linear regression analyses were performed to identify variables associated with insertion distances and balloon volumes. RESULTS: 45 patients underwent supraceliac REBOA: median catheter insertion distance 45 cm [IQR 42-46], balloon inflation volume 14 mL [IQR 8-19], systolic blood pressure (SBP) augmentation 50 mmHg [IQR 35-55]. 14 patients underwent infrarenal deployment: median catheter insertion distance 28.5 cm [IQR 26.5-32.5], balloon volume 10 mL [IQR 5-15]; SBP augmentation 55 mmHg [IQR 40-65]. Patient body metrics were not associated with catheter length or balloon volume. CONCLUSION: A wide range of catheter insertion distances and balloon fill volumes were necessary for correct REBOA positioning and occlusion. No single patient metric accurately correlated with catheter distance or balloon volume. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Prognostic.

Implementation of a multi-modal pain regimen to decrease inpatient opioid exposure after injury.

INTRODUCTION: In 2013, we implemented a pill-based, multi-modal pain regimen (MMPR) in order to decrease in-hospital opioid exposure after injury at our trauma center. We hypothesized that the MMPR would decrease inpatient oral morphine milligram equivalents (MME), decrease opioid prescriptions at discharge, and result in similar Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) pain scores. METHODS: Adult patients admitted to a level-1 trauma center with ≥1 rib fracture from 2010 to 2017 were included - spanning 3 years before and 4 years after MMPR implementation. MME were summarized as medians and interquartile range (IQR) by year of admission. The effect of the MMPR on daily total MME was estimated using Bayesian generalized linear model. RESULTS: Over the 8 year study period, 6,933 patients who met study inclusion criteria were included. No significant differences between years were observed in Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) Chest or Injury Severity Scores (ISS). After introduction of the MMPR, there was a significant reduction in median total MME administered per patient day from 60 MME/patient day (IQR 36-91 MME/patient day) pre-MMPR implementation to 37 MME/patient day (IQR 18-61 MME/patient day) in 2017, p < 0.01. Total MME administered per patient day decreased by 31% in 2017 as compared to 2010 (rate ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.64-0.75). Average NRS pain scores decreased by 0.8 points (95% CI -0.87, -0.81) from 2010 to 2017. CONCLUSION: The introduction of a multi-modal pain regimen resulted in significant reduction in in-patient opioid exposure after injury. The reduction in inpatient opioid use from 2010 to 2017 was equivalent to 11 mg less oxycodone or 17 mg less hydrocodone per patient per day. Additionally, use of the MMPR was associated with a reduction in NRS pain scores.