Evaluating the Cost-effectiveness of Prehospital Plasma Transfusion in Unstable Trauma Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the PAMPer Trial.

Importance: Prehospital plasma transfusion is lifesaving for trauma patients in hemorrhagic shock but is not commonly used owing to cost and feasibility concerns. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prehospital thawed plasma transfusion in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock during air medical transport. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision tree and Markov model were created to compare standard care and prehospital thawed plasma transfusion using published and unpublished patient-level data from the Prehospital Plasma in Air Medical Transport in Trauma Patients at Risk for Hemorrhagic Shock (PAMPer) trial conducted from May 2014 to October 2017, health care and trauma-specific databases, and the published literature. Prehospital transfusion, short-term inpatient care, and lifetime health care costs and quality of life outcomes were included. One-way, 2-way, and Monte Carlo probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed across clinically plausible ranges. Data were analyzed in December 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Relative costs and health-related quality of life were evaluated by an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at a standard willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: The trial included 501 patients in the modified intention-to-treat cohort. Median (interquartile range) age for patients in the thawed plasma and standard care cohorts were 44 (31-59) and 46 (28-60) years, respectively. Overall, 364 patients (72.7%) were male. Thawed plasma transfusion was cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50 467.44 per QALY compared with standard care. The preference for thawed plasma was robust across all 1- and 2-way sensitivity analyses. When considering only patients injured by a blunt mechanism, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio decreased to $37 735.19 per QALY. Thawed plasma was preferred in 8140 of 10 000 iterations (81.4%) on probabilistic sensitivity analysis. A detailed analysis of incremental costs between strategies revealed most were attributable to the in-hospital and postdischarge lifetime care of critically ill patients surviving severe trauma. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, prehospital thawed plasma transfusion during air medical transport for trauma patients in hemorrhagic shock was lifesaving and cost-effective compared with standard care and should become commonplace.

Implementation of a prehospital air medical thawed plasma program: Is it even feasible?

BACKGROUND: The Prehospital Air Medical Plasma (PAMPer) trial demonstrated a 30-day survival benefit among hypotensive trauma patients treated with prehospital plasma during air medical transport. We characterized resources, costs and feasibility of air medical prehospital plasma program implementation. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis using data derived from the recent PAMPer trial. Intervention patients received thawed plasma (5-day shelf life). Unused plasma units were recycled back to blood bank affiliates, when possible. Distribution method and capability of recycling varied across sites. We determined the status of plasma units deployed, utilized, wasted, and returned. We inventoried thawed plasma use and annualized costs for distribution and recovery. RESULTS: The PAMPer trial screened 7,275 patients and 5,103 plasma units were deployed across 22 air medical bases during a 42-month period. Only 368 (7.2%) units of this total thawed plasma pool were provided to plasma randomized PAMPer patients. Of the total plasma pool, 3,716 (72.8%) units of plasma were returned to the blood bank with the potential for transfusion prior to expiration and 1,019 (20.0%) thawed plasma units were deemed wasted for this analysis. The estimated average annual cost of implementation of a thawed plasma program per air medical base at an average courier distance would be between US $24,343 and US $30,077, depending on the ability to recycle plasma and distance of courier delivery required. CONCLUSION: A prehospital plasma program utilizing thawed plasma is resource intensive. Plasma waste can be minimized depending on trauma center and blood bank specific logistics. Implementation of a thawed plasma program can occur with financial cost. Products with a longer shelf life, such as liquid plasma or freeze-dried plasma, may provide a more cost-effective prehospital product relative to thawed plasma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level III.

Prospective Analysis of Operating Room and Discharge Delays in a Burn Center.

Delays to the operating room (OR) or discharge (DC) lead to longer lengths of stay and increased costs. Surprisingly, little work has been done to quantify the number and cost of delays for inpatients to the OR, and to DC to outpatient status. They reviewed their burn admissions to determine how often a patient experiences delays in healthcare delivery. Data for all burn admissions were prospectively collected from 2014 to 2016. A quality improvement filter was created to define acceptable parameters for patient throughput. Every hospital day was labeled as 1) No delay, 2) Operation, 3) Delay to the OR, or 4) Delay to DC. They had 1633 admissions: 432 ICU admissions (26%) and 1201 floor admissions (74%). Six hundred fifteen patients (37.7%) received an operation. Patients with delays included 331 with OR delays (20.3%) and 503 with DC delays (30.8%). Average delay days included (Mean ± SD): OR delay days = 4.7 ± 6.2 and DC delay days = 4.1 ± 4.4. Total number of hospital days was 13,009, divided into 1616 OR delay days (12%) and 2096 DC delay days (16%). Significant OR delays were due to patient unstable for OR (n = 387 [24%]), OR space availability (n = 662 [41%]), indeterminate wound depth (n = 437 [27%]), and donor site availability (n = 83 [5%]). Significant DC delays were due to medical goals not reached (n = 388 [19%]), pain control and wound care (n = 694 [33%]), PT/OT clearance (n = 168 [8.0%]), and DC placement delays (n = 754 [36%]). Costs for OR and DC delays ranged between US$1,000,000 and US$5,000,000. Costs of increasing OR capacity and/or additional social work ancillary staff can be justified through millions of dollars of savings annually.

Prospective Evaluation of Operating Room Inefficiency.

Previously, they identified that 60 per cent of their facility's total operative time is nonoperative. They performed a review of their operating room to determine where inefficiencies exist in nonoperative time. Live video of operations performed in a burn operating room from June 23, 2017 to August 16, 2017 was prospectively reviewed. Preparation (end of induction to procedure start) and turnover (patient out of room to next patient in room) were divided into the following activities: 1) Preparation: remove dressing, position patient, clean patient, drape patient, and 2) Turnover: clean operating room, scrub tray setup, anesthesia setup. Ideal preparation time was calculated as the sum of time needed to perform preparation activities consecutively. Ideal turnover time was calculated as the sum of time needed to clean the operating room and to set up either the scrub tray or anesthesia (the larger of the two times as these can be done in parallel). They reviewed 101 consecutive operations. An average of 2.4 ± 0.8 cases per day were performed. Ideal preparation and turnover time were 16.6 and 30.1 minutes, a 38.3 and 32.5 per cent reduction compared with actual times. Attending surgeon presence in the operating room within 10 minutes of a patient's arrival was found to significantly decrease time to incision by 33 per cent (52.7 ± 14.3 minutes down to 35.7 ± 20.4, P < .0001). A reduction in preparation and turnover time could save $1.02 million and generate $1.76 million in additional revenue annually. Reducing preparation and turnover to ideal times could increase caseload to 4 per day, leading to millions of dollars of savings annually.

Analysis of Operating Room Efficiency in a Burn Center.

Many operating room (OR) processes can limit productivity. Surprisingly, little has been done to identify which OR processes limit downstream activities. Here, the authors aimed to review their burn OR procedures to determine if and where inefficiencies exist. Data for all operations performed in a dedicated burn OR from January 1, 2015, to July 31, 2016 were reviewed in the electronic medical records of our public, teaching hospital. The total time spent was allocated into the following components: induction (patient in room to end of induction), preparation (end of induction to procedure start), procedure (procedure start to procedure end), exit (procedure end to patient out of room), and turnover (patient out of room to next patient in room). Operative times and work relative value units generated were summarized. A total of 1033 cases were performed. Mean ± SD times for each component in minutes were induction (12.4 ± 7.4), preparation (32.1 ± 15.4), procedure (68.21 ± 42.0), exit (14.7 ± 11.0), turnover (50.5 ± 30.0), and total aggregation of components (155.8 ± 65.4). Procedure, turnover, and preparation were the 3 largest time components of an operation in decreasing order (39, 29, and 18%). Mean work relative value units per month was 1749.4 ± 411.9. Average work relative value units per OR hour was 11.7 ± 8.5. The time spent doing procedures comprises about 40% of the total operational time in a burn OR. Other than the procedure itself, the second and third largest component of an operation were turnover and preparation time, respectively.

A comparison of prognosis calculators for geriatric trauma: A Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly consortium study.

BACKGROUND: The nine-center Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly consortium has validated the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS) as a prognosis calculator for injured elders. We compared GTOS' performance to that of the Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) in a multicenter sample. METHODS: Three Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly centers not submitting subjects to the GTOS validation study identified subjects aged 65 years to 102 years admitted from 2000 to 2013. GTOS was specified using the formula [GTOS = age + (Injury Severity Score [ISS] × 2.5) + 22 (if transfused packed red cells (PRC) at 24 hours)]. TRISS uses the Revised Trauma Score (RTS), dichotomizes age (<55 years = 0 and ≥55 years = 1), and was specified using the updated 1995 beta coefficients. TRISS Penetrating was specified as [TRISSP = -2.5355 + (0.9934 × RTS) + (-0.0651 × ISS) + (-1.1360 × Age)]. TRISS Blunt was specified as [TRISSB = -0.4499 + (0.8085 × RTS Total) + (-0.0835 × ISS) + (-1.7430 × Age)]. Each then became the sole predictor in a separate logistic regression model to estimate probability of mortality. Model performances were evaluated using misclassification rate, Brier score, and area under the curve. RESULTS: Demographics (mean + SD) of subjects with complete data (N = 10,894) were age, 78.3 years ± 8.1 years; ISS, 10.9 ± 8.4; RTS = 7.5 ± 1.1; mortality = 6.9%; blunt mechanism = 98.6%; 3.1 % of subjects received PRCs. The penetrating trauma subsample (n = 150) had a higher mortality rate of 20.0%. The misclassification rates for the models were GTOS, 0.065; TRISSB, 0.051; and TRISSP, 0.120. Brier scores were GTOS, 0.052; TRISSB, 0.041; and TRISSP, 0.084. The area under the curves were GTOS, 0.844; TRISSB, 0.889; and TRISSP, 0.897. CONCLUSION: GTOS and TRISS function similarly and accurately in predicting probability of death for injured elders. GTOS has the advantages of a single formula, fewer variables, and no reliance on data collected in the emergency room or by other observers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level II.

Creation of a decision aid for goal setting after geriatric burns: a study from the prognostic assessment of life and limitations after trauma in the elderly [PALLIATE] consortium.

OBJECTIVES: We hypothesized that a decision-support aid to predict index admission mortality and discharge disposition for geriatric burns could be constructed using the well-accepted Baux score (age +total body surface area burned) in a geriatric-specific cohort. METHODS: National Burn Repository version 8.0 (2002-2011) was queried for all subjects aged 65 years or older. Baux scores were calculated and patients grouped into deciles. Three discharge outcomes (death,home, discharge to nonhome setting) were measured per decile. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine optimal Baux score cutpoints based on the Youden Index. The odds of mortality at various Baux score cutoffs were estimated using logistic regression. RESULTS: The sample was composed of 8,001 subjects. Withdrawal of care was documented in 264 deaths; median time to withdrawal was three days. As Baux score increased, three peaks in disposition were seen. Less than 50% of patients with a Baux score of 80 or greater were discharged home. Patients with a moderate Baux score (80-130) had an increased likelihood of discharge to a nonhome setting. Baux scores of 130 or greater were nearly uniformly fatal (mortality, 94-100%). Baux score of 86.15 or less was predictive of discharge home (area under the curve, 0.698; sensitivity, 75.28%; specificity, 54.64%), and a score greater than 93.3 was predictive of mortality (area under the curve, 0.779; sensitivity, 57.46%; specificity, 87.08%). CONCLUSION: For geriatric patients whose Baux scores exceed 86, return-to-home rates drop drastically; mortality increases at a score greater than 93, and mortality is nearly universal at a score ≥130 or greater. We are piloting a display of these findings as a decision-making aid when setting goals of care with stakeholders after geriatric burns. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic/prognostic study, level III; therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Multicenter external validation of the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score: A study by the Prognostic Assessment of Life and Limitations After Trauma in the Elderly (PALLIATE) consortium.

BACKGROUND: A prognostic tool for geriatric mortality after injury called the Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score (GTOS), where GTOS = [age] + [ISS × 2.5] + [22 if transfused any PRBCs by 24 hours after admission], was previously developed based on 13 years of data from geriatric trauma patients admitted to Parkland Hospital. We sought to validate this model. METHODS: Four Level I centers identified subjects who are 65 years or older for the period of the original study. The GTOS model was first specified using the formula [GTOS = age + (ISS × 2.5) + 22 (if given PRBC by 24 hours)] developed from the Parkland sample and then used as the sole predictor in a logistic mixed model estimating probability of mortality in the validation sample, accounting for site as a random effect. We estimated the misclassification (error) rate, Brier score, Tjur R, and the area under the curve in evaluating the predictive performance of the GTOS model. RESULTS: The original Parkland sample (n = 3,841) had a mean (SD) age of 76.6 (8.1) years, mean (SD) ISS of 12.4 (9.9), mortality of 10.8%, and 11.9% receiving PRBCs at 24 hours. The validation sample (n = 18,282) had a mean (SD) age of 77.0 (8.1) years, mean (SD) ISS of 12.3 (10.6), mortality of 11.0%, and 14.1% receiving PRBCs at 24 hours. Fitting the GTOS model to the validation sample revealed that the parameter estimates from the validation sample were similar to those of fitting it to the Parkland sample with highly overlapping 95% confidence limits. The misclassification (error) rate for the GTOS logistic model applied to the validation sample was 9.97%, similar to that of the Parkland sample (9.79%). Brier score, Tjur R, and the area under the curve for the GTOS logistic model when applied to the validation sample were 0.07, 0.25, and 0.86, respectively, compared with 0.08, 0.20, and 0.82, respectively, for the Parkland sample. CONCLUSION: With the use of the data available at 24 hours after injury, the GTOS accurately predicts in-hospital mortality for the injured elderly. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.

Purposeful variable selection and stratification to impute missing Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma data in trauma research.

BACKGROUND: The Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) examination is an important variable in many retrospective trauma studies. The purpose of this study was to devise an imputation method to overcome missing data for the FAST examination. Owing to variability in patients' injuries and trauma care, these data are unlikely to be missing completely at random, raising concern for validity when analyses exclude patients with missing values. METHODS: Imputation was conducted under a less restrictive, more plausible missing-at-random assumption. Patients with missing FAST examinations had available data on alternate, clinically relevant elements that were strongly associated with FAST results in complete cases, especially when considered jointly. Subjects with missing data (32.7%) were divided into eight mutually exclusive groups based on selected variables that both described the injury and were associated with missing FAST values. Additional variables were selected within each group to classify missing FAST values as positive or negative, and correct FAST examination classification based on these variables was determined for patients with nonmissing FAST values. RESULTS: Severe head/neck injury (odds ratio [OR], 2.04), severe extremity injury (OR, 4.03), severe abdominal injury (OR, 1.94), no injury (OR, 1.94), other abdominal injury (OR, 0.47), other head/neck injury (OR, 0.57), and other extremity injury (OR, 0.45) groups had significant ORs for missing data; the other group's OR was not significant (OR, 0.84). All 407 missing FAST values were imputed, with 109 classified as positive. Correct classification of nonmissing FAST results using the alternate variables was 87.2%. CONCLUSION: Purposeful imputation for missing FAST examinations based on interactions among selected variables assessed by simple stratification may be a useful adjunct to sensitivity analysis in the evaluation of imputation strategies under different missing data mechanisms. This approach has the potential for widespread application in clinical and translational research, and validation is warranted.

Leukoreduction before red blood cell transfusion has no impact on mortality in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that leukocytes in donated blood increase mortality and length of hospital stay (LOS) after transfusion. These studies included few trauma patients, however. Many institutions now mandate leukoreduction (LR) of transfusion products, which increases costs by approximately $30/unit. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of LR on mortality and LOS in trauma patients. METHODS: A retrospective before-and-after cohort study was conducted at a level one urban trauma center. LR of all transfusion products commenced in January 2002. All patients treated within the intervention period (March 2002 through January 2004) received LR products. Those transfused during March 2000 through January 2002 served as controls. The trauma registry was queried for patients >or=18 years who survived >or=2 days and received >or=2 units of blood. Mortality and LOS were determined for each group. Subset analysis was performed on patients receiving 2-6 transfusions and those receiving massive transfusion (>or=6 units). Mortality and LOS for control and intervention subsets were compared. Means were compared using Student's t-test, proportions using chi(2) (significance P