Critical systolic blood pressure threshold for endovascular aortic occlusion-A multinational analysis to determine when to place a REBOA.

BACKGROUND: Systolic blood pressure (SBP) is a potential indicator that could guide when to use a resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in trauma patients with life-threatening injuries. This study aims to determine the optimal SBP threshold for REBOA placement by analyzing the association between SBP pre-REBOA and 24-hour mortality in severely injured hemodynamically unstable trauma patients. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of the aortic balloon occlusion (ABO) trauma and AORTA registries. These databases record the details related to the use of REBOA and include data from 14 countries worldwide. We included patients who had suffered penetrating and/or blunt trauma. Patients who arrived at the hospital with a SBP pre-REBOA of 0 mm Hg and remained at 0 mm Hg after balloon inflation were excluded. We evaluated the impact that SBP pre-REBOA had on the probability of death in the first 24 hours. RESULTS: A total of 1,107 patients underwent endovascular aortic occlusion, of these, 848 met inclusion criteria. The median age was 44 years (interquartile range [IQR], 27-59 years) and 643 (76%) were male. The median injury severity score was 34 (IQR, 25-45). The median SBP pre-REBOA was 65 mm Hg (IQR, 49-88 mm Hg). Mortality at 24 hours was reported in 279 (32%) patients. Math modeling shows that predicted probabilities of the primary outcome increased steadily in SBP pre-REBOA below 100 mm Hg. Multivariable mixed-effects analysis shows that when SBP pre-REBOA was lower than 60 mm Hg, the risk of death was more than 50% (relative risk, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-1.92; p = 0.001). DISCUSSION: In patients who do not respond to initial resuscitation, the use of REBOA in SBPs between 60 mm Hg and 80 mm Hg may be a useful tool in resuscitation efforts before further decompensation or complete cardiovascular collapse. The findings from our study are clinically important as a first step in identifying candidates for REBOA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

The Social Vulnerability Index and Long-term Outcomes After Traumatic Injury.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) as a predictor of long-term outcomes after injury. BACKGROUND: The SVI is a measure used in emergency preparedness to identify need for resources in the event of a disaster or hazardous event, ranking each census tract on 15 demographic/social factors. METHODS: Moderate-severely injured adult patients treated at 1 of 3 level-1 trauma centers were prospectively followed 6 to 14 months post-injury. These data were matched at the census tract level with overall SVI percentile rankings. Patients were stratified based on SVI quartiles, with the lowest quartile designated as low SVI, the middle 2 quartiles as average SVI, and the highest quartile as high SVI. Multivariable adjusted regression models were used to assess whether SVI was associated with long-term outcomes after injury. RESULTS: A total of 3153 patients were included [54% male, mean age 61.6 (SD = 21.6)]. The median overall SVI percentile rank was 35th (IQR: 16th-65th). compared to low SVI patients, high SVI patients were more likely to have new functional limitations [odds ratio (OR), 1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-1.92), to not have returned to work (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.40-2.89), and to screen positive for post-traumatic stress disorder (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.12-2.17). Similar results were obtained when comparing average with low SVI patients, with average SVI patients having significantly worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The SVI has potential utility in predicting individuals at higher risk for adverse long-term outcomes after injury. This measure may be a useful needs assessment tool for clinicians and researchers in identifying communities that may benefit most from targeted prevention and intervention efforts.

Long-term Outcomes of Firearm Injury Survivors in the United States: The National Trauma Research Action Plan Scoping Review.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: To describe the current literature regarding long-term physical, mental, and social outcomes of firearm injury survivors in the United States. METHODS: We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases for articles published from 2013 to 2019 that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 or older and reported health outcomes between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Out of 747 articles identified, seven reported outcomes on United States-based civilian patients whose mechanism of injury involved firearms. We extended our publication date criteria from 1995 to 2020 and expanded the search strategy to include medical subject headings terms specific for firearm injury outcomes. Ultimately, ten articles met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: When studied, a significant proportion of patients surviving firearm injury screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder (49%-60%) or were readmitted (13%-26%) within 6 months postinjury. Most studies reported worse long-term outcomes for firearm injury survivors when compared both to similarly injured motor vehicle collision survivors and to the United States general population, including increased chronic pain, new functional limitations, and reduced physical health composite scores. Studies also reported high rates of posttraumatic stress disorder, reduced mental health composite scores, lower employment and return to work rates, poor social functioning, increased alcohol, and substance abuse. CONCLUSIONS: Research on the long-term health impact of firearm injury is scant, and heterogeneity in available studies limits the ability to fully characterize the outcomes among these patients. A better understanding of the long-term health impact of firearm injury would support systematic change in policy and patient care to improve outcomes.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Long-term Recovery From Traumatic Injury.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the proportion and characteristics of traumatic injury survivors who perceive a negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their recovery and to define post-injury outcomes for this cohort. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated physical, psychological, and social stressors that may create a uniquely difficult recovery and reintegration environment for injured patients. METHODS: Adult (≥18 years) survivors of moderate-to-severe injury completed a survey 6 to 14 months post-injury during the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey queried individuals about the perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on injury recovery and assessed post-injury functional and mental health outcomes. Regression models were built to identify factors associated with a perceived negative impact of the pandemic on injury recovery, and to define the relationship between these perceptions and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: Of 597 eligible trauma survivors who were contacted, 403 (67.5%) completed the survey. Twenty-nine percent reported that the COVID-19 pandemic negatively impacted their recovery and 24% reported difficulty accessing needed healthcare. Younger age, lower perceived-socioeconomic status, extremity injury, and prior psychiatric illness were independently associated with negative perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on injury recovery. In adjusted analyses, patients who reported a negative impact of the pandemic on their recovery were more likely to have new functional limitations, daily pain, lower physical and mental component scores of the Short-Form-12 and to screen positive for PTSD and depression. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic is negatively impacting the recovery of trauma survivors. It is essential that we recognize the impact of the pandemic on injured patients while focusing on directed efforts to improve the long-term outcomes of this already at-risk population.

Perceived social support is strongly associated with recovery after injury.

BACKGROUND: The strength of one's social support network is a potentially modifiable factor that may have a significant impact on recovery after injury. We sought to assess the association between one's perceived social support (PSS) and physical and mental health outcomes 6 months to 12 months postinjury. METHODS: Moderate to severely injured patients admitted to one of three Level I trauma centers were asked to complete a phone-based survey assessing physical and mental health outcomes in addition to return to work and chronic pain 6 months to 12 months postinjury. Patients were also asked to rate the strength of their PSS on a 5-point Likert scale. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were built to determine the association between PSS and postdischarge outcome metrics. RESULTS: Of 907 patients included in this study, 653 (72.0%) identified themselves as having very strong/strong, 182 (20.1%) as average, and 72 (7.9%) as weak/nonexistent PSS. Patients who reported a weak/nonexistent PSS were younger and were more likely to be male, Black, and to have a lower level of education than those who reported a very strong/strong PSS. After adjusting for potential confounders, patients with a weak/nonexistent PSS were more likely to have new functional limitations and chronic pain in addition to being less likely to be back at work/school and being more likely to screen positive for symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety at 6 months to 12 months postinjury than those with a strong/very strong PSS. CONCLUSION: Lower PSS is strongly correlated with worse functional and mental health outcome metrics postdischarge. The strength of one's social support network should be considered when trying to identify patients who are at greatest risk for poor postdischarge outcomes after injury. Our data also lend support to creating a system wherein we strive to build a stronger support network for these high-risk individuals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic, level III.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures after injury: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarize patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that are being used to track long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after injury and can potentially be included in trauma registries. METHODS: Online databases were used to identify studies published between 2013 and 2019, from which we selected 747 articles that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 years or older at time of injury and used PROMs to evaluate recovery between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. RESULTS: Most studies were observational, with relatively small sample sizes, and predominantly on traumatic brain injury or orthopedic patients. The number of PROs assessed per study varied from one to 12, for a total of 2052 PROs extracted, yielding 74 unique constructs (physical health, 25 [34%]; mental health, 27 [37%]; social health, 12 [16%]; cognitive health, 7 [10%]; and quality of life, 3 [4%]). These 74 constructs were assessed using 355 different PROMs. Mental health was the most frequently examined outcome domain followed by physical health. Health-related quality of life, which appeared in more than half of the studies (n = 401), was the most common PRO evaluated, followed by depressive symptoms. Physical health was the domain with the highest number of PROMs used (n = 157), and lower-extremity functionality was the PRO that contributed most PROMs (n = 33). CONCLUSION: We identified a wide variety of PROMs available to track long-term PROs after injury in five different health domains: physical, mental, social, cognitive, and quality of life. However, efforts to fully understand the health outcomes of trauma patients remain inconsistent and insufficient. Defining PROs that should be prioritized and standardizing the PROMs to measure them will facilitate the incorporation of long-term outcomes in national registries to improve research and quality of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Reviews & Meta-analyses, Level IV.

Association of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) and mortality in penetrating trauma patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association of REBOA and mortality in a group of patients with penetrating trauma to the torso, treated in a level-I trauma center from Colombia. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, patients with penetrating trauma, requiring emergency surgery, and treated between 2014 and 2018, were included. The decision to use or not use REBOA during emergent surgery was based on individual surgeon's opinion. A propensity score (PS) was calculated after adjusting for age, clinical signs on admission (systolic blood pressure, cardiac rate, Glasgow coma scale), severe trauma in thorax and abdomen, and the presence of non-compressive torso hemorrhage. Subsequently, logistic regression for mortality was adjusted for the number of red blood cells (RBC) transfused within the first six hours after admission, injury severity score (ISS), and quintiles of PS. RESULTS: We included 345 patients; 28 of them (8.1%) were treated with REBOA. Crude mortality rates were 17.9% (5 patients) in REBOA group and 15.3% (48 patients) in control group (p = 0.7). After controlling for RBC transfused, ISS, and the PS, the odds of death in REBOA group was 78% lower than that in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.20, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.05-0.77, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We found that, when compared to no REBOA use, patients treated with REBOA had lower risk-adjusted odds of mortality. These findings should be interpreted with caution and confirmed in future comparative studies, if possible.

Outcomes and management approaches of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta based on the income of countries.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) could provide a survival benefit to severely injured patients as it may improve their initial ability to survive the hemorrhagic shock. Although the evidence supporting the use of REBOA is not conclusive, its use has expanded worldwide. We aim to compare the management approaches and clinical outcomes of trauma patients treated with REBOA according to the countries' income based on the World Bank Country and Lending Groups. METHODS: We used data from the AORTA (USA) and the ABOTrauma (multinational) registries. Patients were stratified into two groups: (1) high-income countries (HICs) and (2) low-to-middle income countries (LMICs). Propensity score matching extracted 1:1 matched pairs of subjects who were from an LMIC or a HIC based on age, gender, the presence of pupillary response on admission, impeding hypotension (SBP ≤ 80), trauma mechanism, ISS, the necessity of CPR on arrival, the location of REBOA insertion (emergency room or operating room) and the amount of PRBCs transfused in the first 24 h. Logistic regression (LR) was used to examine the association of LMICs and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 817 trauma patients from 14 countries were included. Blind percutaneous approach and surgical cutdown were the preferred means of femoral cannulation in HICs and LIMCs, respectively. Patients from LMICs had a significantly higher occurrence of MODS and respiratory failure. LR showed no differences in mortality for LMICs when compared to HICs; neither in the non-matched cohort (OR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.36­1.09; p = 0.1) nor in the matched cohort (OR = 1.45; 95% CI: 0.63­3,33; p = 0.3). CONCLUSION: There is considerable variation in the management practices of REBOA and the outcomes associated with this intervention between HICs and LMICs. Although we found significant differences in multiorgan and respiratory failure rates, there were no differences in the risk-adjusted odds of mortality between the groups analyzed. Trauma surgeons practicing REBOA around the world should joint efforts to standardize the practice of this endovascular technology worldwide.

The critical threshold value of systolic blood pressure for aortic occlusion in trauma patients in profound hemorrhagic shock.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the critical threshold of systolic blood pressure (SBP) for aortic occlusion (AO) in severely injured patients with profound hemorrhagic shock. METHODS: All adult patients (>15 years) undergoing AO via resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) or thoracotomy with aortic cross clamping (TACC) between 2014 and 2018 at level I trauma center were included. Patients who required cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the prehospital setting were excluded. A logistic regression analysis based on mechanism of injury, age, Injury Severity Score, REBOA/TACC, and SBP on admission was done. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients underwent AO. In 57, TACC was performed, and in 50, REBOA was performed. Sixty patients who underwent AO developed traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA), and 47 did not (no TCA). Penetrating trauma was more prevalent in the TCA group (TCA, 90% vs. no TCA, 74%; p < 0.05) but did not modify 24-hour mortality (odds ratio, 0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-2.00; p = 0.337). Overall, 24-hour mortality was 47% (50) and 52% (56) for 28-day mortality. When the SBP reached 60 mm Hg, the predicted mortality at 24 hours was more than 50% and a SBP lower than 70 mm Hg was also associated with an increased of probability of cardiac arrest. CONCLUSION: Systolic blood pressure of 60 mm Hg appears to be the optimal value upon which AO must be performed immediately to prevent the probability of death (>50%). However, values of SBP less than 70 mm Hg also increase the probability of cardiac arrest. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.

Long-term patient-reported outcome measures after injury: National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review protocol.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of patients who survive traumatic injury continue to suffer impaired functional status and increased mortality long after discharge. However, despite the need to improve long-term outcomes, trauma registries in the USA do not collect data on outcomes or care processes after discharge. One of the main barriers is the lack of consensus regarding the optimal outcome metrics. OBJECTIVES: To describe the methodology of a scoping review evaluating current evidence on the available measures for tracking functional and patient-reported outcomes after injury. The aim of the review was to identify and summarize measures that are being used to track long-term functional recovery and patient-reported outcomes among adults after injury. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed and Embase will be performed using the search terms for the population (adult trauma patients), type of outcomes (long-term physical, mental, cognitive, and quality of life), and measures available to track them. Studies identified will be reviewed and assessed for relevance by at least two reviewers. Data will be extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results. This protocol is being reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. DISSEMINATION: This scoping review will provide information regarding the currently available metrics for tracking functional and patient-reported outcomes after injury. The review will be presented to a multi-disciplinary stakeholder group that will evaluate these outcome metrics using an online Delphi approach to achieve consensus as part of the development of the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP). The results of this review will be presented at relevant national surgical conferences and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

No place like home: A national study on firearm-related injuries in the American household.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the prevalence of, and describe factors associated with, firearm-related injuries in American households. METHODS: Using the 2010-2016 ACS-TQIP database, all ICD-9/10 external causes of injury for firearm-related injuries were queried with the place of occurrence designated as "home". Causes of injury were identified as assault, intentional self-injury, and unintentional injury. Univariate then multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with each injury type. RESULTS: 12,657 firearm-related injuries in households were identified. Of those, 49.9% were victims of assault, 35.7% were intentional self-injury, and 14.4% were unintentional. Mortality was highest among self-inflicted injuries (52.4%), followed by assault (12.9%), and unintentional injuries (5.9%). On multivariable analysis, age <45 years, African-American race, and drug use were independently associated with an injury secondary to assault. Age >65 years, White race, psychiatric illness, and alcohol use disorder were independently associated with intentional self-injury. White and American-Indian race were independently associated with unintentional injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Assault is the most common cause of home-related firearm injury requiring hospitalization, while intentional self-injury is the most lethal.

Chest Trauma Outcomes: Public Versus Private Level I Trauma Centers.

BACKGROUND: The goal of our study was to evaluate the differences in care and clinical outcomes of patients with chest trauma between two hospitals, including one public trauma center (Pu-TC) and one private trauma center (Pri-TC). METHODS: Patients with thoracic trauma admitted from January 2012 to December 2018 at two level I trauma centers (Pu-TC: Hospital Universitario del Valle, Pri-TC: Fundación Valle del Lili) in Cali, Colombia, were included. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess for differences in in-hospital mortality, adjusting for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 482 patients were identified; 300 (62.2%) at the Pri-TC and 182 (37.8%) at the Pu-TC. Median age was 27 years (IQR 21-36) and median Injury Severity Score was 25 (IQR 16-26). 456 patients (94.6%) were male, and the majority had penetrating trauma [total 465 (96.5%); Pri-TC 287 (95.7%), Pu-TC 179 (98.4%), p 0.08]. All patients arrived at the emergency room with unstable hemodynamics. There were no statistically significant differences in post-operative complications, including retained hemothorax [Pri-TC 19 vs. Pu-TC 18], pneumonia [Pri-TC 14 vs. Pu-TC 14], empyema [Pri-TC 13 vs. Pu-TC 13] and mediastinitis [Pri-TC 6 vs. Pu-TC 2]. Logistic regression did, however, show a higher odds of mortality when patients were treated at the Pu-TC [OR 2.27 (95% CI 1.34-3.87, p < 0.001]. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found significant statistical differences in clinical outcomes between patients treated at a Pu-TC and Pri-TC. The results are intended to stimulate discussions to better understand reasons for outcome variability and ways to reduce it.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta deployed by acute care surgeons in patients with morbidly adherent placenta: a feasible solution for two lives in peril.

Morbidly adherent placenta (MAP), which includes accreta, increta, and percreta, is a condition characterized by the invasion of the uterine wall by placental tissue. The condition is associated with higher odds of massive post-partum hemorrhage. Several interventions have been developed to improve hemorrhage-related outcomes in these patients; however, there is no evidence to prefer any intervention over another. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an endovascular intervention that may be useful and effective to reduce hemorrhage and transfusions in MAP patients. The objective of this narrative review is to summarize the evidence for REBOA in patients with MAP. We posit that acute care surgeons can perform REBOA for patients with MAP.

A meta-analysis of the incidence of complications associated with groin access after the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Serious complications related to groin access have been reported with the use of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the incidence of complications related to groin access from the use of REBOA in adult trauma patients. METHODS: We identified articles in MEDLINE and EMBASE. We reviewed all studies that involved adult trauma patients who underwent the placement of a REBOA and included only those that reported the incidence of complications related to groin access. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed. RESULTS: We identified 13 studies with a total of 424 patients. REBOA was inserted most commonly by trauma surgeons or emergency room physicians. Information regarding puncture technique was reported in 12 studies and was available for a total of 414 patients. Percutaneous access and surgical cutdown were performed in 304 (73.4%) and 110 (26.5%) patients, respectively. Overall, complications related to groin access occurred in 5.6% of patients (n = 24/424). Lower limb amputation was required in 2.1% of patients (9/424), of which three cases (3/424 [0.7%]) were directly related to the vascular puncture from the REBOA insertion. A meta-analysis that used the logit transformation showed a 5% (95% CI 3%-9%) incidence of complications without significant heterogeneity (LR test: χ = 0.73, p = 0.2, Tau-square = 0.2). In a second meta-analysis, we used the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation and found an incidence of complications of 4% (95% CI 2%-7%) with low heterogeneity (I = 16.3%). CONCLUSION: We found that the incidence of complications related to groin access was of 4-5% based on a meta-analysis of 13 studies published worldwide. Currently, there are no benchmarks or quality measures as a reference to compare, and thus, further work is required to identify these benchmarks and improve the practice of REBOA in trauma surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.