The role of elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin on outcomes following severe blunt chest trauma.

BACKGROUND: Blunt cardiac injuries (BCI) result in poor outcomes following chest trauma. Admission ECG and troponin levels are frequently obtained in patients with suspected BCI, nevertheless, the prognostic value of cardiac troponins remains controversial. The purpose of the current study was to review the prognostic value of elevated high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) in patients with severe blunt chest injuries. We hypothesized that elevated hs-cTnT result in poor outcomes in this subgroup of severe trauma patients. METHODS: After IRB approval, all consecutive patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 and chest Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score ≥3 admitted to the major trauma centers between 1/2015 and 6/2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Primary outcomes were in-hospital and one-year mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventilator days and Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score at hospital discharge. RESULTS: Overall, 147 patients were included. Mean age was 49.0 (19.1) years and 75% were male. Serum troponin levels on admission were accrued in 82 (56%) patients with elevated and normal hs-cTnT levels found in 54 (66%) and in 28 (34%) patients, respectively. Elevated hs-cTnT group had significantly higher ISS and lactate level, and lower systolic blood pressure on admission. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with elevated hs-cTnT levels compared to patients with normal hs-cTnT levels (26% vs. 4%, p = 0.02). Hs-cTnT level > 14 ng/L was significantly associated with extended ventilator days and lower GOS score at hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: Blunt chest trauma victims with elevated hs-cTnT levels experience significantly poorer adjusted outcomes compared to patients with normal levels. Compliance with EAST practice management guidelines following severe blunt chest trauma was not fully complied in our study cohort that warrants prospective performance improvement measures.

Twenty-four hour versus extended antibiotic administration after surgery in complicated appendicitis: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent investigations noted noninferiority in short-course antimicrobial treatments following source control in abdominal infections. We set out to investigate noninferiority of a short and fixed (24 hours) antibiotic administration compared to extended treatment after source control in complicated appendicitis in a prospective single-center open-label randomized controlled trial. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, all consecutive adult patients (age, ≥ 18 years) with complicated appendicitis including gangrenous appendicitis, perforated appendicitis, and appendicitis with periappendicular abscess between May 2016 and February 2018 were randomly allocated to antibacterial therapy limited to 24 hours (short) vs. >24 hours (extended) administration after appendectomy. Primary outcomes included composite postoperative complications and Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). Secondary outcome was hospital length of stay (HLOS). Follow-up analysis at 1 month was conducted per intention and per protocol. RESULTS: A total of 80 patients were enrolled with 39 and 41 cases allocated to the short and the extended therapy group, respectively. Demographic profile and disease severity was similar between the study groups. Overall rate of complications was 17.9% and 29.3% in the short and extended group, respectively (p = 0.23). Mean CCI did not differ between the study groups (p = 0.29). Hospital length of stay was significantly reduced in the short therapy group (61 ± 34 hours vs. 81 ± 40 hours, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: In the current prospective randomized investigation, the short (24 hours) antibiotic administration following appendectomy did not result in a worse primary outcome in complicated appendicitis. The short interval administration resulted in a significant reduction in HLOS with a major cost-saving and antibacterial stewardship perspective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV.