A Prospective Multicenter Comparison of Trauma and Injury Severity Score, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status, and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Calculator's Ability to Predict Operative Trauma Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Trauma outcome prediction models have traditionally relied upon patient injury and physiologic data (eg, Trauma and Injury Severity Score [TRISS]) without accounting for comorbidities. We sought to prospectively evaluate the role of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) score and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk-Calculator (NSQIP-SRC), which are measurements of comorbidities, in the prediction of trauma outcomes, hypothesizing that they will improve the predictive ability for mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications compared to TRISS alone in trauma patients undergoing surgery within 24 hours. METHODS: A prospective, observational multicenter study (9/2018-2/2020) of trauma patients ≥18 years undergoing operation within 24 hours of admission was performed. Multiple logistic regression was used to create models predicting mortality utilizing the variables within TRISS, ASA-PS, and NSQIP-SRC, respectively. Linear regression was used to create models predicting LOS and negative binomial regression to create models predicting complications. RESULTS: From 4 level I trauma centers, 1213 patients were included. The Brier Score for each model predicting mortality was found to improve accuracy in the following order: 0.0370 for ASA-PS, 0.0355 for NSQIP-SRC, 0.0301 for TRISS, 0.0291 for TRISS+ASA-PS, and 0.0234 for TRISS+NSQIP-SRC. However, when comparing TRISS alone to TRISS+ASA-PS (P = .082) and TRISS+NSQIP-SRC (P = .394), there was no significant improvement in mortality prediction. NSQIP-SRC more accurately predicted both LOS and complications compared to TRISS and ASA-PS. CONCLUSIONS: TRISS predicts mortality better than ASA-PS and NSQIP-SRC in trauma patients undergoing surgery within 24 hours. The TRISS mortality predictive ability is not improved when combined with ASA-PS or NSQIP-SRC. However, NSQIP-SRC was the most accurate predictor of LOS and complications.

Open Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy: A Post Hoc Analysis of the EAST Appendicitis MUSTANG Study.

Background: We sought to understand which factors are associated with open appendectomy as final operative approach. We hypothesize that higher American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Emergency General Surgery (EGS) grade is associated with open appendectomy. Patients and Methods: Post hoc analysis of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Multicenter Study of the Treatment of Appendicitis in America: Acute, Perforated and Gangrenous (MUSTANG) prospective appendicitis database was performed. All adults (age >18) undergoing appendectomy were stratified by final operative approach: laparoscopic or open appendectomy (including conversion from laparoscopic). Univariable analysis was performed to compare group characteristics and outcomes, and multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify demographic, clinical, or radiologic factors associated with open appendectomy. Results: A total of 3,019 cases were analyzed. One hundred seventy-five (5.8%) patients underwent open appendectomy, including 127 converted from laparoscopic to open. The median age was 37 (25) years and 53% were male. Compared with the laparoscopic group, open appendectomy patients had more comorbidities, higher proportion of symptoms greater than 96 hours, and higher AAST EGS grade. Moreover, on intraoperative findings, the open appendectomy group had a higher incidence of perforated and gangrenous appendicitis with purulent contamination, abscess/phlegmon, and purulent abdominal/pelvic fluid. On multivariable analysis controlling for comorbidities, clinical and imaging AAST grade, duration of symptoms, and intra-operative findings, only AAST Clinical Grade 5 appendicitis was independently associated with open appendectomy (odds ratio [OR], 5.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-25.55; p = 0.025). Conclusions: In the setting of appendicitis, generalized peritonitis (AAST Clinical Grade 5) is independently associated with greater odds of open appendectomy.

Association Between Fecal Contamination and Outcomes After Emergent General Surgery Colorectal Resection: A Post Hoc Analysis of an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Multicenter Study.

Background: The impact of fecal contamination on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing emergent colorectal resection is unclear. We hypothesized that fecal contamination is associated with worse clinical outcomes regardless of operative technique. Patients and Methods: This is a post hoc analysis for an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored multicenter study that prospectively enrolled emergency general surgery patients undergoing urgent/emergent colorectal resection. Subjects were categorized according to presence versus absence of intra-operative fecal contamination. Propensity score matching (1:1) by age, weight, Charlson comorbidity index, pre-operative vasopressor use, and method of colonic management (primary anastomosis [ANST] vs. ostomy [STM]) was performed. χ2 analysis was then performed to compare the composite outcome (surgical site infection and fascial dehiscence). Results: A total of 428 subjects were included, of whom 147 (34%) had fecal contamination. Propensity score matching (1:1) resulted in a total of 147 pairs. After controlling for operative technique, fecal contamination was still associated with higher odds of the composite outcome (odds ratio [OR], 2.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.45-4.2; p = 0.001). Conclusions: In patients undergoing urgent/emergent colorectal resection, fecal contamination, regardless of operative technique, is associated with worse clinical outcomes. Selection bias is possible, thus randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm or refute a causal relation.

Comparison of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator and Trauma and Injury Severity Score Risk Assessment Tools in Predicting Outcomes in High-Risk Operative Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) uses anatomic/physiologic variables to predict outcomes. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator (NSQIP-SRC) includes functional status and comorbidities. It is unclear which of these tools is superior for high-risk trauma patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) class IV or V). This study compares risk prediction of TRISS and NSQIP-SRC for mortality, length of stay (LOS), and complications for high-risk operative trauma patients. METHODS: This is a prospective study of high-risk (ASA-PS IV or V) trauma patients (≥18 years-old) undergoing surgery at 4 trauma centers. We compared TRISS vs NSQIP-SRC vs NSQIP-SRC + TRISS for ability to predict mortality, LOS, and complications using linear, logistic, and negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Of 284 patients, 48 (16.9%) died. The median LOS was 16 days and number of complications was 1. TRISS + NSQIP-SRC best predicted mortality (AUROC: .877 vs .723 vs .843, P = .0018) and number of complications (pseudo-R2/median error (ME) 5.26%/1.15 vs 3.39%/1.33 vs 2.07%/1.41, P < .001) compared to NSQIP-SRC or TRISS, but there was no difference between TRISS + NSQIP-SRC and NSQIP-SRC with LOS prediction (P = .43). DISCUSSION: For high-risk operative trauma patients, TRISS + NSQIP-SRC performed better at predicting mortality and number of complications compared to NSQIP-SRC or TRISS alone but similar to NSQIP-SRC alone for LOS. Thus, future risk prediction and comparisons across trauma centers for high-risk operative trauma patients should include a combination of anatomic/physiologic data, comorbidities, and functional status.

Firearm legislation: The association between neighboring states and crude death rates.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the impact of interstate differences in firearm laws on state-level firearm mortality. We aim to study the association between neighboring states' firearm legislation and firearm-related crude death rate (CDR). METHODS: The CDC Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System was queried for adult all-intent (accidental, suicide, and homicide) firearm-related CDR among the 50 states from 2012 to 2020. States were divided into five cohorts based on the Giffords Law Center Annual Gun Law Scorecard, and two groups were constructed: Strict (A, B, C) and Lenient (D, F). We examined the effect of (1) a single incongruent neighbor, defined as "Different" if the state is bordered by ≥1 state with a grade score difference >1, and (2) the average grade of all neighboring states, defined as "Different" if the average of all neighboring states resulted in a grade score difference >1. RESULTS: Strict states with similar average neighbors had significantly lower CDR compared with Strict states with different average neighbors (2.98 [1.91-5.06] vs. 3.87 [2.37-5.94], p = 0.02), while Lenient states with similar average neighbors had significantly higher CDR compared with Lenient states with different average neighbors (6.02 [4.56-8.11] vs. 4.7 [3.95-5.35], p = 0.002). Lenient states surrounded by all similar Lenient states had the highest CDR, which was significantly higher than Lenient states with ≥1 different neighbor (6.52 [5.09-8.96] vs. 5.19 [3.85-6.61], p < 0.001). However, Strict states with ≥1 different neighbor did not have higher CDR compared with Strict states surrounded by all similar Strict states (3.39 [2.17-5.35] vs. 3.14 [1.91-5.38], p = 0.5). CONCLUSION: We report a lopsided neighboring effect whereby Lenient states may benefit from at least one Strict neighbor, while Strict states may be adversely affected only when surrounded by mostly Lenient neighbors. These findings may assist policymakers regarding the efficacy of their own state's legislation in the context of incongruent neighboring states. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

Establishing a core outcomes set for massive transfusion: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma modified Delphi method consensus study.

BACKGROUND: The management of severe hemorrhage has changed significantly over recent decades, resulting in a heterogeneous description of diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes in the literature, which is not suitable for data pooling. Therefore, we sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) to help guide future massive transfusion (MT) research and overcome the challenge of heterogeneous outcomes reporting. METHODS: Massive transfusion content experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi study. For Round 1, participants submitted a list of proposed core outcomes. In subsequent rounds, panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to score proposed outcomes for importance. Core outcomes consensus was defined as >85% of scores receiving 7 to 9 and <15% of scores receiving 1 to 3. Feedback and aggregate data were shared between rounds. RESULTS: From an initial panel of 16 experts, 12 (75%) completed three rounds of deliberation to reevaluate variables not achieving predefined consensus criteria. A total of 64 items were considered, with 4 items achieving consensus for inclusion as core outcomes: blood products received in the first 6 hours, 6-hour mortality, time to mortality, and 24-hour mortality. CONCLUSION: Through an iterative survey consensus process, content experts have defined a COS to guide future MT research. This COS will be a valuable tool for researchers seeking to perform new MT research and will allow future trials to generate data that can be used in pooled analyses with enhanced statistical power. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level V.

Small Intestinal Perforation Secondary to Necrotizing Enteritis-An Under-Recognized Complication of Crohn's Disease.

Small bowel perforation is an uncommon but severe event in the natural history of Crohn's disease with fewer than 100 cases reported. We review Crohn's disease cases with necrotizing enteritis and share a case of a 26-year-old female who presented with a recurrent episode of small intestinal perforation. A PubMed literature review of case reports and series was conducted using keywords and combinations of "Crohn's disease," "small intestine perforation," "small bowel perforation," "free perforation," "regional enteritis," and "necrotizing enteritis." Data extracted included demographic data, pre- or postoperative steroid administration, medical or surgical management, and case fatality. Nineteen reports from 1935 to 2021 qualified for inclusion. There were 43 patients: 20 males and 23 females with a mean age of 36 ± 15 years old. 75 total perforations were described: 56 ileal (74.6%), 15 jejunal (20.0%), 2 cecal (2.7%), and 1 small intestine non-specified (2.7%). 38 of 43 patients were managed surgically by primary repair (11), ostomy creation (21), or an anastomosis (11). Of 11 case fatalities, medical management alone was associated with higher mortality (5/5; 100% mortality) compared to those treated surgically (6/38; 15.8% mortality; P < .001). Patient sex, disease history, acute abdomen, and pre- or postoperative steroid use did not significantly correlate with mortality. Jejunal perforation was significantly (P = .028) associated with event mortality while ileal was not (P = .45). Although uncommon, necrotizing enteritis should be considered in Crohn's patients who present with small intestinal perforation. These cases often require urgent surgical intervention and may progress to fulminant sepsis and fatality if not adequately treated.

The Role of Indirect Calorimetry in Care of the Surgical Patient.

Purpose of Review: This is a review of recent literature on the role of indirect calorimetry in surgical nutrition. Recent Findings: All critical care societal guidelines recommend the use of indirect calorimetry as the standard of care to determine energy needs. Recent studies confirm discrepancy between measured and equation-predicted energy expenditure and further demonstrate improved outcomes with indirect calorimetry-guided nutrition. Patients that undergo ECMO, CRRT and those with COVID-19 would benefit from the use of indirect calorimetry. Summary: Indirect calorimetry-guided nutrition is the standard of care in mechanically ventilated surgical patients.

Teduglutide for the treatment of low-output enterocutaneous fistula - A pilot randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Enterocutaneous fistula (ECF) is a complication of surgery or inflammatory bowel disease associated with disproportionately high healthcare costs, morbidity, and mortality. We performed this proof-of-concept, feasibility, open-label, pilot randomized, crossover study to assess the efficacy and safety of the use of teduglutide (TED) to treat ECF. METHODS: Adults (age >18) with low-output (<200 mL/d) ECF were randomized to 2 months of continuing standard-of-care (SOC) followed by crossover to 2 months of SOC + TED or the reverse order. The primary efficacy endpoint was decrease in fistula volume by 20% of baseline 3-day average. Secondary efficacy endpoints were: fistula resolution and health-related quality of life questionnaire scores. RESULTS: Six out of 10 planned subjects were randomized and completed the study, which was terminated early due to slow enrollment during the Covid-19 pandemic. Overall subject compliance with daily TED injections was high (98%). Five of six enrolled subjects met the definition for the primary efficacy endpoint; these clinical responses were not observed during the SOC arm in these subjects. One subject experienced complete fistula closure during TED treatment. Adverse events during treatment were uncommon, minor, and usually resolved despite ongoing treatment. Quality of life survey responses were highly variable and did not correlate with fistula changes. CONCLUSIONS: Two months of teduglutide treatment was feasible, well-tolerated, and resulted in observable decreases in ECF drainage in the majority of subjects, including spontaneous closure in one subject. This therapy shows promise, but larger, multicenter confirmatory trials are required. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: (NCT02889393).

Outcomes of Restricted versus Liberal Post-Operative Antibiotic Use in Patients Undergoing Appendectomy: A DOOR/RADAR Post Hoc Analysis of the EAST Appendicitis MUSTANG Study.

Background: There is no consensus on the duration of antibiotic use after appendectomy. We hypothesized that restricted antibiotic use is associated with better clinical outcomes. Patients and Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Multicenter Study of the Treatment of Appendicitis in America-Acute, Perforated, and Gangrenous (MUSTANG) study using the desirability of outcome ranking/response adjusted for duration of antibiotic risk (DOOR/RADAR) framework. Three separate datasets were analyzed based on restricted versus liberal post-operative antibiotic groups: simple appendicitis (no vs. yes); complicated appendicitis, only four days (≤24 hours vs. 4 days); and complicated appendicitis, four or more days (≤24 hours vs. ≥4 days). Patients were assigned to one of seven mutually exclusive DOOR categories RADAR ranked within each category. DOOR/RADAR score pairwise comparisons were performed between all patients. Each patient was assigned either 1, 0, or -1 if they had better, same, or worse outcomes than the other patient in the pair, respectively. The sum of these numbers (cumulative comparison score) was calculated for each patient and the group medians of individual sums were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum. Results: For simple appendicitis, the restricted group had higher median sums than the liberal group (552 [552,552] vs. -1,353 [-1,353, -1,353], p < 0.001). For both complicated appendicitis analyses, the restricted group had higher median sums than the liberal: only 4 (196 [23,196] vs. -121 [-121, -121], p < 0.02) and 4 or more (660 [484,660] vs -169 [-444,181], p < 0.001). Conclusions: Restricted post-operative antibiotic use in patients after appendectomy is a dominant strategy when considering treatment effectiveness and antibiotic exposure.

Appendectomy versus nonoperative management of simple appendicitis: A post hoc analysis of an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study using a hierarchical ordinal scale.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists about the preferred initial treatment of appendicitis. We sought to compare the two treatments for initial management of simple appendicitis. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the Multicenter Study for the Treatment of Appendicitis in America: Acute, Perforated, and Gangrenous database, subjects were divided into appendectomy or nonoperative management (NOM; antibiotics only or percutaneous drainage) cohorts. A novel topic-specific hierarchical ordinal scale was created with eight mutually exclusive categories: mortality, reoperation, other secondary interventions, readmission, emergency department visit, wound complication, surgical site infection, and no complication. Pairwise comparisons of American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Imaging Severity Grade 1 (simple appendicitis) patients were compared using win-lose-tie scoring and the sums of appendectomy/NOM groups were compared. RESULTS: A total 3,591 subjects were included: 3,262 appendectomy and 329 NOM, with significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Across 28 sites, the rate of NOM ranged from 0% to 48%, and the loss to follow-up rate was significantly higher for NOM compared with appendectomy (16.5% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.024). In the simple appendicitis hierarchical ordinal scale analysis, 2,319 subjects resulted in 8,714,304 pairwise comparisons; 75% of comparisons resulted in ties. The median (interquartile range) sums for the two groups are as follows: surgical, 400 (400-400), and NOM, 400 (-2,427 to 400) (p < 0.001). A larger proportion of appendectomy subjects (88.1%) had an outcome that was equivalent (or better) than at least half of the subjects compared with NOM subjects (NOM, 70.5%; OR [95% confidence interval], 0.3 [0.2-0.4]). CONCLUSION: In contemporary American practice, appendectomy (compared with NOM) for simple appendicitis is associated with lower odds of developing clinically important unfavorable outcomes in the first year after illness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

A core outcome set for damage control laparotomy via modified Delphi method.

OBJECTIVES: Damage control laparotomy (DCL) remains an important tool in the trauma surgeon's armamentarium. Inconsistency in reporting standards have hindered careful scrutiny of DCL outcomes. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for DCL clinical studies to facilitate future pooling of data via meta-analysis and Bayesian statistics while minimizing reporting bias. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was performed using DCL content experts identified through Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) 'landmark' DCL papers and EAST ad hoc COS task force consensus. RESULTS: Of 28 content experts identified, 20 (71%) participated in round 1, 20/20 (100%) in round 2, and 19/20 (95%) in round 3. Round 1 identified 36 potential COS. Round 2 achieved consensus on 10 core outcomes: mortality, 30-day mortality, fascial closure, days to fascial closure, abdominal complications, major complications requiring reoperation or unplanned re-exploration following closure, gastrointestinal anastomotic leak, secondary intra-abdominal sepsis (including anastomotic leak), enterocutaneous fistula, and 12-month functional outcome. Despite feedback provided between rounds, round 3 achieved no further consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Through an electronic survey-based consensus method, content experts agreed on a core outcome set for damage control laparotomy, which is recommended for future trials in DCL clinical research. Further work is necessary to delineate specific tools and methods for measuring specific outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V, criteria.

Early hypermetabolism is uncommon in trauma intensive care unit patients.

BACKGROUND: Classic experiments demonstrating hypermetabolism after major trauma were performed in a different era of critical care. We aim to describe the modern posttraumatic metabolic response in the trauma intensive care unit (TICU). METHODS: This prospective observational study enrolled TICU mechanically ventilated adults (aged ≥18) from 3/2018-2/2019. Multiple, daily resting energy expenditure (REE) measurements were recorded. Basal energy expenditure (BEE) was calculated by the Harris-Benedict equation. Hypometabolism was defined as average daily REE < 0.85*BEE and hypermetabolism defined as average daily REE > 1.15*BEE. Demographics, interventions, and clinical outcomes were abstracted. Descriptive statistics and multivariable logistical regression models evaluating demographics with the outcome variable of hypermetabolism for the first 3 days ("sustained hypermetabolism") were performed, along with group-based trajectory modeling (GBTM). RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were analyzed: median age was 38 (28-56) years; 38 (69%) were male; body mass index (kg/m2 ) was 28 (26-32); and Injury Severity Score was 27 (19-34), with (38 [71%] blunt, 8 [15%] penetrating, 7 [13%] burn) injury mechanism. Overall, 19 (35%) had hypermetabolism on day 1 ("immediate hypermetabolism"), and 11 (21%) had sustained hypermetabolism for the first 3 days. Logistic regression analysis identified penetrating mechanism (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 16.4; 95% CI, 1.9-199.6; p = .015), burn mechanism (AOR, 11.1; 95% CI, 1.3-116.8; p =.029), and maximum temperature (AOR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.3-20.3; p= .041) as independent predictors of sustained hypermetabolism. GBTM identified 4 nutrition phenotypes, with 2 hyperconsumptive phenotypes associated with increased risk of malnutrition at discharge. CONCLUSION: Only a minority of injured patients is hypermetabolic in the first week after injury. Elevated temperature, penetrating mechanism, and burn mechanism are independently associated with sustained hypermetabolism. Hyperconsumptive phenotype patients are more likely to develop malnutrition during hospitalization.

A core outcome set for resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: A consensus based approach using a modified Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) in trauma has grown exponentially in recent years. However, inconsistency in reporting of outcome metrics related to this intervention has inhibited the development of evidence-based guidelines for REBOA application. This study sought to attain consensus on a core outcome set (COS) for REBOA. METHODS: A review of "landmark" REBOA articles was performed, and panelists (first and senior authors) were contacted for participation in a modified Delphi study. In round 1, panelists provided a list of potential core outcomes. In round 2, using a Likert scale (1 [not important] to 9 [very important]), panelists scored the importance of each potential outcome. Consensus for core outcomes was defined a priori as greater than 70% of scores receiving 7 to 9 and less than 15% of scores receiving 1 to 3. Feedback was provided after round 2, and a third round was performed to reevaluate variables not achieving consensus and allow a final "write-in" round by the experts. RESULTS: From 17 identified panelists, 12 participated. All panelists (12 of 12, 100%) participated in each subsequent round. Panelists initially identified 34 unique outcomes, with two outcomes later added upon write-in request after round 2. From 36 total potential outcomes, 20 achieved consensus as core outcomes, and this was endorsed by 100% of the participants. CONCLUSION: Panelists successfully achieved consensus on a COS for REBOA-related research. This REBOA-COS is recommended for all clinical trials related to REBOA and should help enable higher-quality study designs, valid aggregation of published data, and development of evidence-based practice management guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic test or criteria, level V. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Core Outcomes in Trauma Surgery: Development of a Core Outcome Set for Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1709.

Comparison of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator, Trauma and Injury Severity Score, and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status to predict operative trauma mortality in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) uses anatomical and physiologic variables to predict mortality. Elderly (65 years or older) trauma patients have increased mortality and morbidity for a given TRISS, in part because of functional status and comorbidities. These factors are incorporated into the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator (NSQIP-SRC). We hypothesized scoring tools using comorbidities and functional status to be superior at predicting mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications in elderly trauma patients undergoing operation. METHODS: Four level I trauma centers prospectively collected data on elderly trauma patients undergoing surgery within 24 hours of admission. Using logistic regression, five scoring models were compared: ASA-PS, NSQIP-SRC, TRISS, TRISS-ASA-PS, and TRISS-NSQIP-SRC.Brier scores and area under the receiver operator characteristics curve were calculated to compare mortality prediction. Adjusted R2 and root mean squared error were used to compare LOS and predictive ability for number of complications. RESULTS: From 122 subjects, 9 (7.4%) died, and the average LOS was 12.9 days (range, 1-110 days). National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator was superior to ASA-PS and TRISS at predicting mortality (area under the receiver operator characteristics curve, 0.978 vs. 0.768 vs. 0.903; p = 0.007). Furthermore, NSQIP-SRC was more accurate predicting LOS (R2, 25.9% vs. 13.3% vs. 20.5%) and complications (R2, 34.0% vs. 22.6% vs. 29.4%) compared with TRISS and ASA-PS. Adding TRISS to NSQIP-SRC improved predictive ability compared with NSQIP-SRC alone for complications (R2, 35.5% vs. 34.0%; p = 0.046). However, adding ASA-PS or TRISS to NSQIP-SRC did not improve the predictive ability for mortality or LOS. CONCLUSION: The NSQIP-SRC, which includes comorbidities and functional status, had superior ability to predict mortality, LOS, and complications compared with TRISS alone in elderly trauma patients undergoing surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

The hidden burden of unplanned readmission after emergency general surgery.

BACKGROUND: There are no national studies of nonelective readmissions after emergency general surgery (EGS) diagnoses that track nonindex hospital readmission. We sought to determine the rate of overall and nonindex hospital readmissions at 30 and 90 days after discharge for EGS diagnoses, hypothesizing a significant portion would be to nonindex hospitals. METHODS: The 2013 to 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried for all patients 16 years or older admitted with an EGS primary diagnosis and survived index hospitalization. Multivariable logistic regression identified risk factors for nonelective 30- and 90-day readmission to index and nonindex hospitals. RESULTS: Of 4,171,983 patients, 13% experienced unplanned readmission at 30 days. Of these, 21% were admitted to a nonindex hospital. By 90 days, 22% experienced an unplanned readmission, of which 23% were to a nonindex hospital. The most common reason for readmission was infection. Publicly insured or uninsured patients accounted for 67% of admissions and 77% of readmissions. Readmission predictors at 30 days included leaving against medical advice (odds ratio [OR], 2.51 [2.47-2.56]), increased length of stay (4-7 days: OR, 1.42 [1.41-1.43]; >7 days: OR, 2.04 [2.02-2.06]), Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2 (OR, 1.72 [1.71-1.73]), public insurance (Medicare: OR, 1.45 [1.44-1.46]; Medicaid: OR, 1.38 [1.37-1.40]), EGS patients who fell into the "Other" surgical category (OR, 1.42 [1.38-1.48]), and nonroutine discharge. Risk factors for readmission remained consistent at 90 days. CONCLUSION: Given that nonindex hospital EGS readmission accounts for nearly a quarter of readmissions and often related to important benchmarks such as infection, current EGS quality metrics are inaccurate. This has implications for policy, benchmarking, and readmission reduction programs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level III.

The effect of prolonged antibiotics on postoperative complications for common bile duct stones: A post hoc analysis of an EAST multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial guidance for common bile duct (CBD) stones is limited. We sought to examine the effect of antibiotic duration on infectious complications in patients with choledocholithiasis and/or gallstone pancreatitis. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of a prospective, observational, multicenter study of patients undergoing same admission cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis and gallstone pancreatitis between 2016 and 2019. We excluded patients with cholangitis and/or cholecystitis. Patients were divided into groups based on duration of antibiotics: prophylactic (<24 hours) or prolonged (≥24 hours). We analyzed these two groups in the preoperative and postoperative periods. Outcomes included infectious complications, acute kidney injury (AKI), and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: There were 755 patients in the cohort. Increasing age, CBD diameter, and a preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.34-2.73; p < 0.001) significantly predicted prolonged preoperative antibiotic use. Increasing age, operative duration, and a postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (odds ratio, 4.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.85-13.65; p < 0.001) significantly predicted prolonged postoperative antibiotic use. Rates of infectious complications were similar between groups, but LOS was 2 days longer for patients receiving overall prolonged antibiotics (p < 0.0001). Patients with AKI received two more days of overall antibiotic therapy (p = 0.02) compared with those without AKI. CONCLUSION: Rates of postoperative infectious complications were similar among patients treated with a prolonged or prophylactic course of antibiotics. Prolonged antibiotic use was associated with a longer LOS and AKI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level IV.

Discordance in Appendicitis Grading and the Association with Outcomes: A Post-Hoc Analysis of an EAST Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) appendicitis severity grading criteria use independent subscales for radiologists (Rad), surgeons (Surg), and pathologists (Path). We reviewed the EAST Multicenter Study of the Treatment of Appendicitis in America: Acute, Perforated, and Gangrenous (MUSTANG) database to determine rates of discordance and clinical consequences of inaccuracy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A confusion matrix was constructed for pairs among Rad, Surg, and Path. Accuracy was reported using chronologically latest diagnosis as gold standard. "Concordance" (C) was achieved when both agreed on the severity grade and "Discordance"(D) when they disagreed. A composite endpoint("COMP"= 30-d incidence of surgical site infection, abscess, wound complication, Clavien-Dindo complication, secondary intervention, ED[Emergency Department] visit, hospital readmission, and mortality) was compared between C versus D groups via χ2 test with Bonferroni correction to define statistical significance(P = 0.05/9 = 0.005). RESULTS: For each pair and diagnosis, subjects were categorized as C or D and compared for the incidence of COMP. Incidence of COMP for Surg and/or Path in C versus D: 16% versus. 26% (p = 0.006, NS by Bonferroni) for acute (A), 39% versus 33% (p = 0.39) for gangrenous (G), and 48% versus 37% (p = 0.035, NS by Bonferroni) for perforated (P). For Rad and/or Path in C versus. D: 17% versus 42% (p < 0.001) for A, 27% versus 31% (p = 0.95) for G, and 56% versus 48% (p = 0.48) for P. For C versus D: 17% versus 40% (p < 0.001) for A, 36% versus 26% (p = 0.43) for G, and 51% versus 39% (p = 0.29) for P. CONCLUSIONS: In appendicitis treated by appendectomy, surgeons are most accurate at diagnosing acute appendicitis and least accurate at diagnosing gangrenous. Radiologists are less accurate for all categories. When the surgeon is wrong, clinical outcomes are not significantly worse. However, when the radiologist is wrong about acute appendicitis, patients have worse clinical outcomes.