Predictors of oliguria in post-traumatic acute kidney injury.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury is classified by urine output into non-oliguric and oliguric variants. Non-oliguric acute kidney injury has lower morbidity and mortality and accounts for up to 64% of acute kidney injury in hospitalized patients. However, the incidence of non-oliguric acute kidney injury in the trauma population and whether the 2 variants of acute kidney injury share the same risk factors is unknown. We hypothesized that oliguria would be present in the majority of acute kidney injury in severely injured trauma patients and that unique risk factors would predispose patients to the development of oliguria. METHODS: Patients admitted to the trauma intensive care unit and diagnosed with an acute kidney injury between 2016 to 2021 were identified. Cases were categorized based on urine output into oliguric (<400 mL per day) and non-oliguric (>400 mL per day) disease. Risk factors, management, and outcomes were compared. Logistic regression was used to identify risk factors associated with oliguria. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients met inclusion criteria. Non-oliguric acute kidney injury accounted for 74% of all cases and was associated with greater survival (78% vs 35.6%, P < .001). Using logistic regression, female sex, vasopressor use, and a greater net fluid balance at 48 hours were all predictive of oliguria (while controlling for age, race, shock index, massive transfusion, operative intervention, cardiac arrest, and nephrotoxic medication exposure). CONCLUSION: Non-oliguria accounts for the majority of post-traumatic acute kidney injury and is associated with improved survival. Specific risk factors for the development of oliguric acute kidney injury include female sex, vasopressor use, and a higher net fluid balance at 48 hours.

Persistent long-term opioid use after trauma: Incidence and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: The opioid epidemic in the United States continues to lead to a substantial number of preventable deaths and disability. The development of opioid dependence has been strongly linked to previous opioid exposure. Trauma patients are at particular risk since opioids are frequently required to control pain after injury. The purpose to this study was to examine the prevalence of opioid use before and after injury and to identify risk factors for persistent long-term opioid use after trauma. METHODS: Records for all patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center over a 1-year period were analyzed. Demographics, injury characteristics, and hospital course were recorded. A multistate Prescription Drug Monitoring Program database was queried to obtain records of all controlled substances prescribed from 6 months before the date of injury to 12 months after hospital discharge. Patients still receiving narcotics at 1 year were defined as persistent long-term users and were compared against those who were not. RESULTS: A total of 2,992 patients were analyzed. Of all patients, 20.4% had filled a narcotic prescription within the 6 months before injury, 53.5% received opioids at hospital discharge, and 12.5% had persistent long-term use after trauma with the majority demonstrating preinjury use. Univariate risk factors for long-term use included female sex, longer length of stay, higher Injury Severity Score, anxiety, depression, orthopedic surgeries, spine injuries, multiple surgical locations, discharge to acute inpatient rehab, and preinjury opioid use. On multivariate analysis, the only significant predictors of persistent long-term prescription opioid use were preinjury use and a much smaller effect associated with use at discharge. CONCLUSION: During a sustained opioid epidemic, concerns and caution are warranted in the use of prescription narcotics for trauma patients. However, persistent long-term opioid use among opioid-naive patients is rare and difficult to predict after trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

The limitations of hospital and law enforcement databases in characterizing the epidemiology of firearm injury.

BACKGROUND: Current data on the epidemiology of firearm injury in the United States are incomplete. Common sources include hospital, law enforcement, consumer, and public health databases, but each database has limitations that exclude injury subgroups. By integrating hospital (inpatient and outpatient) and law enforcement databases, we hypothesized that a more accurate depiction of the totality of firearm injury in our region could be achieved. METHODS: We constructed a collaborative firearm injury database consisting of all patients admitted as inpatients to the regional level 1 trauma hospital (inpatient registry), patients treated and released from the emergency department (ED), and subjects encountering local law enforcement as a result of firearm injury in Jefferson County, Kentucky. Injuries recorded from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020, were analyzed. Outcomes, demographics, and injury detection rates from individual databases were compared with those of the combined collaborative database and compared using χ2 testing across databases. RESULTS: The inpatient registry (n = 1,441) and ED database (n = 1,109) were combined, resulting in 2,550 incidents in the hospital database. The law enforcement database consisted of 2,665 patient incidents, with 2,008 incidents in common with the hospital database and 657 unique incidents. The merged collaborative database consisted of 3,207 incidents. In comparison with the collaborative database, the inpatient, total hospital (inpatient and ED), and law enforcement databases failed to include 55%, 20%, and 17% of all injuries, respectively. The hospital captured nearly 94% of survivors but less than 40% of nonsurvivors. Law enforcement captured 93% of nonsurvivors but missed 20% of survivors. Mortality (11-26%) and injury incidence were markedly different across the databases. DISCUSSION: The utilization of trauma registry or law enforcement databases alone do not accurately reflect the epidemiology of firearm injury and may misrepresent areas in need of greater injury prevention efforts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level IV.

An evaluation of emergency general surgery transfers and a call for standardization of practices.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing trend toward regionalization of emergency general surgery, which burdens patients. The absence of a standardized, emergency general surgery transfer algorithm creates the potential for unnecessary transfers. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical reasoning prompting emergency general surgery transfers and to initiate a discussion for optimal emergency general surgery use. METHODS: Consecutive emergency general surgery transfers (December 2018 to May 2019) to 2 tertiary centers were prospectively enrolled in an institutional review board-approved protocol. Clinical reasoning prompting transfer was obtained prospectively from the accepting/consulting surgeon. Patient outcomes were used to create an algorithm for emergency general surgery transfer. RESULTS: Two hundred emergency general surgery transfers (49% admissions, 51% consults) occurred with a median age of 59 (18 to 100) and body mass index of 30 (15 to 75). Insurance status was 25% private, 45% Medicare, 21% Medicaid, and 9% uninsured. Weekend transfers (Friday to Sunday) occurred in 45%, and 57% occurred overnight (6:00 pm to 6:00 am). Surgeon-to-surgeon communication occurred with 22% of admissions. Pretransfer notification occurred with 10% of consults. Common transfer reasons included no surgical coverage (20%), surgeon discomfort (24%), or hospital limitations (36%). A minority (36%) underwent surgery within 24 hours; 54% did not require surgery during the admission. Median length of stay was 6 (1 to 44) days. CONCLUSION: Conditions prompting emergency general surgery transfers are heterogeneous in this rural state review. There remains an unmet need to standardize emergency general surgery transfer criteria, incorporating patient and hospital factors and surgeon availability. Well-defined requirements for communication with the accepting surgeon may prevent unnecessary transfers and maximize resource allocation.

Recidivism rates following firearm injury as determined by a collaborative hospital and law enforcement database.

BACKGROUND: Recidivism is a key outcome measure for injury prevention programs. Firearm injury recidivism rates are difficult to determine because of poor longitudinal follow-up and incomplete, disparate databases. Reported recidivism rates from trauma registries are 2% to 3%. We created a collaborative database merging law enforcement, emergency department, and inpatient trauma registry data to more accurately determine rates of recidivism in patients presenting to our trauma center following firearm injury. METHODS: A collaborative database for Jefferson County, Kentucky, was constructed to include violent firearm injuries encountered by the trauma center or law enforcement from 2008 to 2019. Iterative deterministic data linkage was used to create the database and eliminate redundancies. From patients with at least one hospital encounter, raw recidivism rates were calculated by dividing the number of patients injured at least twice by the total number of patients. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate risk factors for recidivism. The cumulative incidence of recidivism over time was estimated using a Kaplan-Meier survival model. RESULTS: There were 2, 363 assault-type firearm injuries with at least 1 hospital encounter, approximately 9% of which did not survive their initial encounter. The collaborative database demonstrated raw recidivism rates for assault-type firearm injuries of 9.5% compared with 2.5% from the trauma registry alone. Risk factors were young age, male sex, and African American race. The predicted incidence of recidivism was 3.6%, 5.6%, 11.4%, and 15.8% at 1, 2, 5, and 10 years, respectively. CONCLUSION: Both hospital and law enforcement data are critical for determining reinjury rates in patients treated at trauma centers. Recidivism rates following violent firearm injury are four times higher using a collaborative database compared with the inpatient trauma registry alone. Predicted incidence of recidivism at 10 years was at least 16% for all patients, with high-risk subgroups experiencing rates as high as 26%. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level III.

Risk factors and outcome of acute kidney injury in elderly trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) is associated with significant morbidity. The risk factors for AKI in elderly trauma patients have not been defined. METHODS: Injured patients 75 years old or older from 2014 to 2016 were evaluated. AKI was identified by RIFLE criteria. Patients with and without AKI were compared with chi square, ANOVA, and logistic regression. RESULTS: 836 patients were 75 years old or older. Patients with AKI were more commonly male, hypotensive on admission with a greater Injury Severity Score but age, diabetes, hypertension and baseline creatinine were similar. Patients with AKI had a higher mortality that did not increase with RIFLE stage. Male sex, ISS, hypotension on admission and presence of an extremity injury were independently associated with AKI by logistic regression. CONCLUSION: AKI in elderly trauma patients is associated with magnitude of injury and shock but not pre-existing medical comorbidities and it significantly increased the risk of death.

Gunshot Injuries to the Extremity: Is Immediate General Surgery Presence Needed?

Gunshot wounds (GSW) are becoming increasingly prevalent in urban settings. GSW to the trunk mandate full trauma activation and immediate surgeon response because of the high likelihood of operative intervention. Extremity GSW proximal to the knee/elbow also require full trauma activation based on American College of Surgeons Committee on trauma standards. However, whether isolated extremity GSW require frequent operative intervention is unclear. We evaluated GSW at our Level I trauma center from January 2012 to December 2016. Demographic data and injury patterns were abstracted from the trauma registry and charts. The number of GSW increased yearly but the age, gender, Injury Severity Score and injury pattern did not change (P = ns, not shown). There were 504 GSW that included an extremity and 194 (38%) involved multiple body regions. There were 310 GSW (62%) isolated to an extremity and 176 were proximal to the elbow/knee. If proximal GSW had an Emergency Department systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, 53 per cent underwent vascular repair, 12 per cent had soft tissue repair, and 29 per cent required no operation. If proximal GSW had an Emergency Department blood pressure >90 mm Hg, 57 per cent underwent orthopedic repair, 22 per cent required no surgery, and only 13 per cent required vascular repair (P < 0.01). In the absence of other criteria for full trauma activation such as shock, the need for the immediate presence of a general surgeon to perform emergency surgery for a GSW isolated to the extremity is low.

Does chest tube location matter? An analysis of chest tube position and the need for secondary interventions.

BACKGROUND: Tube thoracostomy is a common procedure used in the management of thoracic trauma. Traditional teaching suggests that chest tubes should be directed in specific locations to improve function. Common examples include anterior and superior placement for pneumothorax, inferior and posterior placement for hemothorax, and avoidance of the pulmonary fissure. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of specific chest tube position on subsequent chest tube function. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing tube thoracostomy for trauma from January 1, 2010, to September 30, 2012, was performed. Only patients undergoing computed tomography scans following chest tube insertion were included so that positioning could be accurately determined. Rib space insertion level and positioning of the tube relative to the lung parenchyma were recorded. The duration of chest tube drainage and the need for secondary interventions were determined and compared for tubes in different rib spaces and locations. For purposes of comparison, tubes placed above the sixth rib space were considered "high," and those at or below it were considered "low." RESULTS: A total of 291 patients met criteria for inclusion. Forty-eight patients (16.5%) required secondary intervention. Neither high chest tube placement nor chest tube location relative to lung parenchyma was associated with an increased need for secondary interventions. On multivariate analysis, only chest Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores, mechanism, and volume of hemothorax were found to be significant risk factors for the need for secondary interventions. CONCLUSION: Chest tube location does not influence the need for secondary interventions as long as the tube resides in the pleural space. The severity of chest injury is the most important factor influencing outcome in patients undergoing tube thoracostomy for trauma. Tube thoracostomy technique should focus on safe insertion within the pleural space and not on achieving a specific tube location. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.