Retrospective Analysis of Risk Factors in Geriatric Hip Fracture Patients Predictive of Surgical Intensive Care Unit Admission.

INTRODUCTION: Although numerous risk factors and prediction models affecting morbidity and mortality in geriatric hip fracture patients have been previously identified, there are scant published data on predictors for perioperative Surgical Intensive Care Unit (SICU) admission in this patient population. Determining if a patient will need an SICU admission would not only allow for the appropriate allocation of resources and personnel but also permit targeted clinical management of these patients with the goal of improving morbidity and mortality outcomes. The purpose of this study was to identify specific risk factors predictive of SICU admission in a population of geriatric hip fracture patients. Unlike previous studies which have investigated predominantly demographic, comorbidity, and laboratory data, the present study also considered a frailty index and length of time from injury to presentation in the Emergency Department (ED). METHODS: A total of 501 geriatric hip fracture patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center were included in this retrospective, single-center, quantitative study from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022. Using a logistical regression analysis, more than 25 different variables were included in the regression model to identify values predictive of SICU admission. Predictive models of planned versus unplanned SICU admissions were also estimated. The discriminative ability of variables in the final models to predict SICU admission was assessed with receiver operating characteristic curves' area under the curve estimates. RESULTS:  Frailty, serum lactate > 2, and presentation to the ED > 12 hours after injury were significant predictors of SICU admission overall (P = 0.03, 0.038, and 0.05 respectively). Additionally, the predictive model for planned SICU admission had no common significant predictors with unplanned SICU admission. Planned SICU admission significant predictors included an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 15 and greater, a higher total serum protein, serum sodium <135, systolic blood pressure (BP) under 100, increased heart rate on admission to ED, thrombocytopenia (<120), and higher Anesthesia Society Association physical status classification (ASA) score (P = 0.007, 0.04, 0.05, 0.002, 0.041, 0.05, and 0.005 respectively). Each SICU prediction model (overall, planned, and unplanned) demonstrated sufficient discriminative ability with the area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.869, 0.601, and 0.866 respectively. Finally, mean hospital Length of Stay (LOS) and mortality were increased in SICU admissions when compared to non-SICU admissions. CONCLUSION: Of the three risk factors predictive of SICU admission identified in this study, two have not been extensively studied previously in this patient population. Frailty has been associated with increased mortality and postoperative complications in hip fracture patients, but this is the first study to date to use a novel frailty index specifically designed and validated for use in hip fracture patients. The other risk factor, time from injury to presentation to the ED serves as an indicator for time a hip fracture patient spent without receiving medical attention. This risk factor has not been investigated heavily in the past as a predictor of SICU admissions in this patient population.

Use of Andexanet Alfa for Factor Xa Inhibitor Reversal in US Verified Trauma Centers: A National Survey.

Direct oral factor Xa inhibitors are replacing vitamin K-dependent antagonists as anticoagulation treatment in many clinical scenarios. Trauma centers are noting an increase in patients presenting on these medications. The 2018 Food and Drug Administration approval of andexanet alfa provides an alternative anticoagulation reversal. Barriers may limit utilization of new medications including a lack of grade 1A evidence supporting the use of prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) versus andexanet alfa and cost. To evaluate barriers of andexanet alfa utilization by trauma surgeons, a 15-question survey was conducted. There was a 9% completion rate (n = 89). The results revealed 23.5% would choose andexanet alfa as first-line treatment in children, and 25.8% as first-line treatment in adults. The majority of respondents, 64.7% and 67.4%, would use PCC preferentially in children and adults, respectively. Respondents indicated that cost burden was an overriding factor (76.3%); 42.4% cited lack of high-level efficacy data of andexanet alfa for reversal of factor Xa inhibitors. Additional double-blinded multi-institutional randomized controlled trials comparing 4F-PCC and andexanet alfa for factor Xa inhibitor reversal are needed to support efficacy especially with the increased cost associated.

General Surgery Residents Improve Efficiency but Not Hospital Length of Stay in Trauma Care.

Background Good Samaritan University Hospital (GSUH) has been preliminary approved to become a Level I Trauma Center. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) requires Level I Trauma Centers to have senior surgery residents on the trauma service. To fulfill this requirement, GSUH has established an affiliation with Stony Brook University Hospital, a tertiary care hospital with an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved five-year postgraduate training program in General Surgery, to have senior surgery residents from their training program rotate and provide care to trauma patients beginning in July of 2021. Numerous studies over the past few decades have shown conflicting results on patient outcomes with resident involvement. A majority of the studies published only evaluated residents who were native to the respective hospitals. Our study evaluated the impact of surgery residents visiting from an outside hospital on hospital length of stay (LOS) in admitted trauma patients. As increased hospital LOS is strongly associated with increased hospital-acquired complications, increased healthcare costs, and poor patient experience, we used this to evaluate the efficiency of our trauma team with the addition of visiting surgery residents. Methodology A retrospective study was conducted utilizing the hospital's trauma registry. Patients were divided into two groups: the first two years before the addition of surgery residents from July 1st, 2019, to June 30th, 2021, and the second two years after the addition of surgery residents from July 1st, 2021, to June 30th, 2023. The primary outcome measured the hospital LOS between the two groups. Pearson's chi-square test was used to analyze all categorical data, and a t-test was used to compare differences in means. Results From July 1st, 2019, to June 30th, 2023, a total of 7,081 patients were admitted to the trauma service: 3,411 in the group with no surgery residents, and 3,670 patients in the group with residents (p = 0.052). The primary outcome, hospital LOS, was not significantly affected by the addition of surgery residents to the trauma service. Hospital LOS before surgery residents was 4.40 days compared to with residents at 4.41 days (p = 0.944). Mortality was significantly decreased with resident involvement at 1.9% compared to no residents at 2.7% (p = 0.017). Interestingly, the Emergency Department LOS was significantly longer in the group with residents, 268.82 minutes vs. 232.19 minutes (p = 0.004). The average New Injury Severity Score was 9.02 in the group with no residents and 9.04 in the group with surgery residents (p = 0.927). The majority of traumas in both groups were blunt trauma 96.5% with no residents vs. 97.1% with residents (p = 0.192). Conclusions The addition of visiting surgery residents to the trauma team did not significantly increase hospital LOS. Ultimately, having visiting residents on the trauma service may enhance resident education without compromising hospital LOS. Training at different hospitals can allow residents to experience different patient populations and different hospital protocols, making them adaptable and more prepared to work in different hospital settings, whether academic or community. Hospitals without their own residency programs could potentially form affiliations with residency programs to meet the ACS requirements, which can bring more patients to their hospitals.

Resource Deployment in Response to Trauma Patients.

Background Variance in the deployment of the trauma team to the emergency department (ED) can result in patient treatment delays and excess burden on ED personnel. Characteristics of trauma patients, including mechanism of injury, injury type, and age, have been associated with differences in trauma resource deployment. Therefore, this retrospective, single-site study aimed to examine the deployment patterns of trauma resources, the characteristics of the trauma patients associated with levels of trauma resource deployment, and the deployment impact on ED workforce utilization and non-trauma ED patients. Methodology This was an investigator-initiated, single-institution, retrospective cohort study of all patients designated as a trauma response and admitted to a community hospital's ED from July 01, 2019, through July 01, 2022. Results Resource deployment for trauma patients varied by mechanism of injury (p < 0.001), injury type (p < 0.001), and patient age groups (p < 0.001). Specifically, there was a lower average trauma activation for geriatric trauma patients with a fall as a mechanism of injury compared to all younger patient groups with any mechanism of injury (F(5) = 234.49, p < 0.001). In the subsample, there was an average of 3.35 ED registered nurses (RNs) allocated to each trauma patient. Additionally, the ED RNs were temporarily reallocated from an average of 4.09 non-trauma patients to respond to trauma patients, despite over a third of the trauma patients in the subsample being the trauma patients being discharged home from the ED. Conclusions Trauma activation responses need to be standardized with a specific plan for geriatric fall patients to ensure efficient use of trauma and ED personnel resources.

Measuring Emergency Department Staff Perceptions of Causes and Management of Violence.

BACKGROUND: Half of all reported violent incidents in health care settings occur in the emergency department (ED) placing all staff members at risk. However, research typically does not include all ED work groups or validated measures beyond nurses and physicians. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to (a) validate an established instrument measuring perceptions of causes of violence and attitudes toward managing violence within an inclusive workforce sample; and (b) explore variation in perceptions, attitudes, and incidence of violence and safety to inform a violence prevention program. METHODS: This is an investigator-initiated single-site cross-sectional survey design assessing the psychometric properties of the Management of Aggression and Violence Attitude Scale (MAVAS) within a convenience sample (n = 134). Construct validity was assessed using exploratory factor analysis and reliability was evaluated by the Cronbach's α estimation. Descriptive, correlational, and inferential estimates explored differences in perceptions, attitudes, and incidence of violence and safety. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis indicated validity of the MAVAS with a seven-factor model. Its internal consistency was satisfactory overall (Cronbach's α= 0.87) and across all subscales (Cronbach's α values = 0.52-0.80). Significant variation in incidence of physical assault, perceptions of safety, and causes of violence was found between work groups. CONCLUSIONS: The MAVAS is a valid and reliable tool to measure ED staff members' perceptions of causes of violence and attitudes toward managing violence. In addition, it can inform training according to differences in work group learner needs.

Double jeopardy: Successful management of a traumatic ascending aortic pseudoaneurysm with concurrent subdural hematoma.

We present the case of a 59-year-old male who sustained an ascending aortic injury and a subdural hematoma after a head on collision. After undergoing emergent craniotomy for evacuation of the subdural hematoma, he was maintained with strict blood pressure control. Once able to be safely anticoagulated, he underwent replacement of the ascending aorta. This exceedingly rare case was managed by a multidisciplinary team approach that led to an optimal outcome given his disastrous multi-traumatic injuries.

Current management of common bile duct stones in a teaching community hospital.

The advent of laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) has complicated management of common bile duct (CBD) stones. While LC is routine, laparoscopic CBD exploration (LCBDE) is not, and an algorithm to manage suspected choledocholithiasis has not been uniformly accepted. We evaluated current management of choledocholithiasis. Patients suspected of having CBD stones over a 2-year period were evaluated, and 42 studies in the literature were reviewed. Thirty-two patients were identified. Fourteen patients (44%) had LC with intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) with no preoperative studies. IOC revealed CBD stones in nine (64%). Seven had CBD exploration (CBDE) at cholecystectomy, and two had postoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). CBDE was successful in five cases, and ERCP was successful in one. Eighteen patients (56%) underwent preoperative ERCP. Five (28%) had no CBD stones. ERCP removed stones in nine patients, and four had open CBDE after failed ERCP. Current literature supports LC with IOC without any preoperative studies. Laparoscopic CBDE is highly successful but depends on surgeon experience. Removing CBD stones with ERCP is also very successful but is associated with increased cost, hospital stay, and complications. We conclude that LC with IOC should be performed without preoperative ERCP when choledocholithiasis is suspected. If found, stones should be removed laparoscopically if possible.