RESUMEN
Unhoused (UH) individuals experience burn injuries at a higher rate than domiciled individuals, and have poorer outcomes following injuries. One such mechanism proposed for worsened outcomes is secondary to poor nutrition. Access to proper nutrition and food insecurity are major barriers. Malnutrition has been shown to decrease wound tensile strength, increase infection rates, and prolong healing. The purpose of this study was to understand if albumin and prealbumin could help determine outcomes in UH patients and identify at-risk patients earlier in their hospital course A retrospective chart review was conducted of UH patients from 2015 through 2023 at a large urban safety net hospital. Data collected included admission laboratory values including albumin and prealbumin. Outcomes studied included length of stay, ICU days, ventilator days, and mortality. Data analysis for the effect of albumin and prealbumin included a zero-truncated negative binomial model for length of stay, a negative binomial hurdle model for ICU length of stay and ventilator days, and logistic regression for mortality. 385 patients met inclusion criteria and of these, 366 had albumin and 361 had prealbumin information. Adjusting for age, gender, and TBSA, the fewest days in the hospital and lowest odds of admission to the ICU occurred for those with admission albumin values of approximately 3.4-3.5 g/dL. Each unit (g/dL) decrease in albumin was associated with 3.19 times the odds of death (95% CI 1.42, 7.69). Each unit (mg/dL) decrease in prealbumin was associated with 1.19 times the odds of death (95% CI 1.06, 1.35). Decreased admission albumin and prealbumin levels are associated with worse burn outcomes in UH patients. These nutritional biomarkers may aid in determining which UH patients are suffering from food insecurity at injury onset. Obtaining these values on admission may help burn providers target nutritional goals in their most vulnerable patients.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To quantify how patients with lateral compression type 1 (LC1) pelvis fracture value attributes of operative versus nonoperative treatment. DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment. SETTING: Three US Level 1 trauma centers. PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA: Adult survivors of an LC1 pelvis treated between June 2016 and March 2023 were identified from institutional registries. The choice experiment was administered as a survey from March through August 2023. OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS: Participants chose between 12 hypothetical comparisons of treatment attributes including operative or nonoperative care, risk of death, severity of pain, risk of secondary surgery, shorter hospital stay, discharge destination, and independence in ambulation within 1 month of injury. The marginal utility of each treatment attribute, for example, the strength of participants' aggregate preference for an attribute as indicated by their survey choices, was estimated by multinomial logit modeling with and without stratification by treatment received. RESULTS: Four hundred forty-nine eligible patients were identified. The survey was distributed to 182 patients and collected from 72 patients (39%) at a median 2.3 years after injury. Respondents were 66% female with a median age of 59 years (IQR, 34-69 years). Before injury, 94% ambulated independently and 75% were working; 41% received operative treatment. Independence with ambulation provided the highest relative marginal utility (21%, P < 0.001), followed by discharge to home versus skilled nursing (20%, P < 0.001), moderate versus severe postdischarge pain (17%, P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (16%, P < 0.001), secondary surgery (15%, P < 0.001), and mortality (10%, P = 0.02). Overall, no relative utility for operative versus nonoperative treatment was observed (2%, P = 0.54). However, respondents strongly preferred the treatment they received: operative patients valued operative treatment (utility, 0.37 vs. -0.37, P < 0.001); nonoperative patients valued nonoperative treatment (utility, 0.19 vs. -0.19, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LC1 pelvis fracture patients valued independence with ambulation, shorter hospital stay, and avoiding secondary surgery and mortality in the month after their injury. Patients preferred the treatment they received rather than operative versus nonoperative care.