And Miles to Go Before We Sleep: EAST Diversity and Inclusivity Progress and Remaining Challenges.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the diversity, equity, and inclusion landscape in academic trauma surgery and the EAST organization. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In 2019, the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) surveyed its members on equity and inclusion in the #EAST4ALL survey and assessed leadership representation. We hypothesized that women and surgeons of color (SOC) are underrepresented as EAST members and leaders. METHODS: Survey responses were analyzed post-hoc for representation of females and SOC in academic appointments and leadership, EAST committees, and the EAST board, and compared to the overall respondent cohort. EAST membership and board demographics were compared to demographic data from the Association of American Medical Colleges. RESULTS: Of 306 respondents, 37.4% identified as female and 23.5% as SOC. There were no significant differences in female and SOC representation in academic appointments and EAST committees compared to their male and white counterparts. In academic leadership, females were underrepresented ( P < 0.0001), whereas SOC were not ( P = 0.08). Both females and SOC were underrepresented in EAST board membership ( P = 0.002 and P = 0.043, respectively). Of EAST's 33 presidents, 3 have been white women (9%), 2 have been Black, non-African American men (6%), and 28 (85%) have been white men. When compared to 2017 AAMC data, women are well-represented in EAST's 2020 membership ( P < 0.0001) and proportionally represented on EAST's 2019-2020 board ( P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The #EAST4ALL survey suggests that women and SOC may be underrepresented as leaders in academic trauma surgery. However, lack of high-quality demographic data makes evaluating representation of structurally marginalized groups challenging. National trauma organizations should elicit data from their members to re-assess and promote the diversity landscape in trauma surgery.

Over-transfusion with blood for suspected hemorrhagic shock is not associated with worse clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated patient outcomes after early, small volume red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in the setting of presumed hemorrhagic shock. We hypothesized that transfusion with even small amounts of blood would be associated with more complications. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective review of trauma patients admitted to a Level 1 trauma center between 2016-2021. Patients predicted to require massive transfusion who survived ≥72 h were categorized according to units of RBCs transfused in the first 24 h. A Cox regression model stratified by dichotomized ISS and adjusted for SBP <90 mm Hg and pulse >120 bpm on arrival was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes of interest. RESULTS: A total of 3121 (24%) received RBC transfusion within the first 24 h. Massive transfusion protocol (MTP) was activated in 38% (1188/3121): 17% received no RBCs, 27.4% 1-3 units, 32.4% 4-9 units, and 22.7% ≥10 units. Mean ISS increased with each category of RBC transfusion. There was no difference in the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI), acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), infection, cardiac arrest, venous thromboembolism or stroke for patients receiving 1-3 units compared to the non-transfused group or 4-9 units group (p > 0.05). Compared to those receiving ≥10 units, the 1-3 units group had a significantly lower risk of AKI, ARDS, and cardiac arrest. DISCUSSION: Early empiric RBC transfusion for presumed hemorrhagic shock may subject patients to potential over-transfusion and end-organ damage. Among patients meeting clinical triggers for MTP, 1-3 units of allogeneic RBCs is not associated with worse outcomes.

Examining the accuracy of the AM-PAC "6-clicks" at predicting discharge disposition in traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of the AM-PAC "6-Clicks" in predicting discharge dispositions among severely injured patients with an acute traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients with a TBI who presented to our trauma center from 2016 through 2018 and received a "6-Clicks" assessment. Outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge disposition: home, inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF), subacute location (SL), or death/hospice. Subgroup analyses evaluated patients with concomitant mobility-limiting injuries (CM-LI). RESULTS: There were 432 patients with a TBI; 42.6% (n = 184) had CM-LI. CM-LI patients had lower "6-Clicks" scores compared to patients with an isolated TBI (9 vs 14, p < .0001) and a longer hospital LOS (16.5 d vs 9 d, p < .0001). Increasing "6-Clicks" scores were associated with a home discharge (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.15-1.28, p < .0001) while decreasing scores were predictive of an IRF or SL discharge or death/hospice. Increasing scores correlated with decreasing hospital LOS for the cohort (ß - 8.93, 95% CI -10.24 - -7.62, p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Among patients with an acute TBI, increasing "6 Clicks" scores were associated with a shorter hospital LOS and greater likelihood of home discharge. Decreasing mobility scores correlated with discharge to an IRF, SL, and death/hospice.

Perception of risk in massive transfusion as it relates to fetal outcomes: A survey of surgeons and nurses at one American trauma center.

BACKGROUND: The use of blood products early in the resuscitation of bleeding trauma patients is widely accepted, but made difficult by limited supplies of D- red blood cell (RBC)-containing products. Use of D+ RBC-containing products would alleviate this issue, but could lead to alloimmunization. Risk associated with transfusing D+ RBC in emergency bleeding situations is being reconsidered. The level of concern surrounding emergency transfusion as it relates to future fetal harm was surveyed among surgeons and nurses. METHODS: Faculty and staff in the Departments of Surgery and Nursing were surveyed on the risks of receiving an emergency RBC transfusion and the subsequent potential for fetal harm. Answers were grouped as likely to accept (likely/very likely) or refuse transfusion (unlikely/very unlikely). Participants were compared by sex, and women by child-bearing age, ([15-50 years] vs. [>50 years]). RESULTS: Ninety surveys were initiated with 76 fully completed. Male (n = 39) and female (n = 37) respondents were comparable. Most female respondents (30/37, 81%) were of childbearing age. Overall, both males (38/39, 95%) and females (33/37, 89%; p = .19) were likely to accept a transfusion in an emergency. There was no difference in transfusion acceptance if the risk of fetal harm was presented as 1% (p = .73) or 0.1% (p = .51). Most females (34/37, 92%) were not opposed to transfusion even if there was an unspecified risk of future fetal harm. CONCLUSION: Most of the surgeons and nurses who responded would accept a transfusion in an emergency situation even if it might lead to harming a future fetus.

Dual Neurostimulant Therapy May Optimize Acute Neurorecovery for Severe Traumatic Brain Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Neurostimulants (NS) can be used to treat patients with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) with altered levels of consciousness. We sought to determine if amantadine alone (monotherapy) versus amantadine + methylphenidate (dual therapy) would correlate with better neurorecovery (NR) among acutely hospitalized patients with a severe TBI. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of adult patients admitted to our level I trauma center from 2016-2019 with a severe TBI. NR was calculated by dividing the difference between admission and discharge Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores by 12. Resulting ratios were used to divide the cohort into two groups: excellent NR (1) and non-excellent NR (<1). RESULTS: A total of 76 patients comprised the cohort; 19.7% (n = 15) had excellent NR. The excellent NR group had a larger proportion of patients receiving dual therapy compared to the non-excellent group (86.7% versus 59%, P = 0.04). In monotherapy (n = 27), amantadine was initiated 13 (8-20) d following injury and treatment lasted 7 (2-16) d. In dual therapy (n = 49), amantadine was initiated 12 (6-19) d following injury and continued for 9 (4-25.5) d. Methylphenidate was initiated 15 (7-20.5) d following injury and continued for 5 (2-13.5) d. After adjusting for confounders, dual versus monotherapy predicted excellent NR (OR 5.4, 95% CI 1.2 - 38.9, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: During the acute hospitalization for a severe TBI, dual NS therapy compared to monotherapy is associated with an increased likelihood of excellent NR. Larger prospective trials are warranted to validate these findings.

The role of diagnostic laparoscopy for trauma at a high-volume level one center.

BACKGROUND: The role of minimally invasive surgery in trauma has continued to evolve over the past 20 years. Diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) has become increasingly utilized for the diagnosis and management of both blunt and penetrating injuries. OBJECTIVE: While the safety and feasibility of laparoscopy has been established for penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma, it remains a controversial tool for other injury patterns due to the concern for complications and missed injuries. We sought to examine the role of laparoscopy for the initial management of traumatic injuries at our urban Level 1 trauma center. METHODS: All trauma patients who underwent DL for blunt or penetrating trauma between 2009 and 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic data, indications for DL, injuries identified, rate of conversion to open surgery, and outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 316 patients were included in the cohort. The mean age was 34.9 years old (± 13.7), mean GCS 14 (± 3), and median ISS 10 (4-18). A total of 110/316 patients (35%) sustained blunt injury and 206/316 patients (65%) sustained penetrating injury. Indications for DL included evaluation for peritoneal violation (152/316, 48%), free fluid without evidence of solid organ injury (52/316, 16%), evaluation of bowel injury (42/316, 13%), and evaluation for diaphragmatic injury (35/316, 11%). Of all DLs, 178/316 (56%) were negative for injury requiring intervention, which was 58% of blunt cases and 55% of penetrating cases. There were no missed injuries noted. Average hospital length of stay was significantly shorter for patients that underwent DL vs conversion to open exploration (2.2 days vs. 4.5 days, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this single institution, retrospective study, the high volume of cases appears to show that DL is a reliable tool for detecting injury and avoiding potential negative or non-therapeutic laparotomies. However, when injuries were present, the high rate of conversion to open exploration suggests that its utility for therapeutic intervention warrants further study.

The 5 and 11 Factor Modified Frailty Indices are Equally Effective at Outcome Prediction Using TQIP.

BACKGROUND: The 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) and the 11-factor modified frailty index (mFI-11) are equally effective in predicting adverse outcomes in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The similarly structured American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database has not been studied with these two frailty indices. We hypothesized that the mFI-5 and mFI-11 could similarly predict adverse outcomes with TQIP data. METHODS: The mFI-5 and mFI-11 were calculated for each patient comprising our institutional TQIP registry (2016-2018). Spearman ρ was calculated to assess correlations between the two indices across multiple predefined TQIP patient cohorts. Complications were stratified by frailty score for each index. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for age, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and Injury Severity Score were created to assess each mFI's association with any complication and discharge dispositions (home, facility, and expired). RESULTS: There were 8467 patients. Spearman ρ was >0.9 (P < 0.0001) for all patient cohorts except elderly, elderly blunt multisystem, and isolated hip fractures. Increasing frailty scores for both mFIs were associated with greater rates of acute kidney injury (P < 0.0001), myocardial infarction (P < 0.001), severe sepsis (P < 0.05), unplanned return to the intensive care unit (P < 0.0001), and unplanned intubation (P < 0.0001). On separate multivariable logistic regressions, the mFI-5 and mFI-11 were each predictive of any complication (P < 0.0001) and a facility discharge (P < 0.001). Neither the mFI-5 nor the mFI-11 were associated with mortality (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The mFI-5 and mFI-11 are highly correlated across several TQIP patient cohorts. They also are both predictive of complications and discharge dispositions; however, neither index can predict mortality. Given its ease of use, the mFI-5 may be a better option for identifying frail patients and predicting adverse outcomes at the point of care in trauma.

The 5-Item Modified Frailty Index Predicts Adverse Outcomes in Trauma.

BACKGROUND: The 5-item modified frailty index (mFI-5) has been shown to predict adverse outcomes in surgery; yet, its role in trauma patients is unclear. We hypothesized that increasing frailty, as indicated by increasing mFI-5 scores, would correlate with worse outcomes and greater mortality in trauma patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients captured by our 2018 Spring and Fall Trauma Quality Improvement Program registry. The mFI-5 was calculated by assigning one point for each comorbidity present: diabetes, hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and functionally dependent health status. Outcomes included complications, length of stay, mortality, and discharge location. RESULTS: A total of 3364 patients were included; 68.0% (n = 2288) were not frail, 16.5% (n = 555) were moderately frail, and 15.5% (n = 521) were severely frail. Higher frailty scores were associated with greater rates of unplanned intubations (P < 0.01) and unplanned admissions to the intensive care unit (P < 0.01). Rates of nonhome discharge (P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the severe frailty group compared with the moderate and no frailty groups. On multivariable regression adjusting for demographics and injury details, severe frailty was predictive of any complication (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.12-2.11; P < 0.01), failure to rescue (OR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.47-5.66; P = 0.002), nonhome discharge (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.47-2.40; P < 0.0001), and mortality (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.07-3.15; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty is not only associated with longer hospitalizations but also with more complications, adverse discharge locations, and increased odds of mortality. The mFI-5 is a quick and intuitive tool that can be used to determine an individual's frailty at the time of admission.

Surgical Apgar scores predict complications after emergency general surgery laparotomy.

BACKGROUND: The Surgical Apgar Score (SAS) is a 10-point validated score comprised of three intraoperative variables (blood loss, lowest heart rate, and lowest mean arterial pressure). Lower scores are worse and predict major postoperative complications. The SAS has not been applied in emergency general surgery (EGS) but may help guide postoperative disposition. We hypothesize that SAS can predict complications in EGS patients undergoing a laparotomy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of adult patients at a single, quaternary care center who underwent an exploratory laparotomy for EGS conditions within 6 hours of surgical consultation from 2015 to 2019. Patients were grouped by whether they experienced a postoperative complication (systemic, surgical, and/or death). Multivariable regression was performed to predict complications, accounting for SAS and other statistically significant variables between groups. Using this model, predicted probabilities of a complication were generated for each SAS. RESULTS: The cohort comprised 482 patients: 32.8% (n = 158) experienced a complication, while 67.2% (n = 324) did not. Patients with complications were older, frailer, more often male, had worse SAS (6 vs. 7, p < 0.0001) and American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, and higher rates of perforated hollow viscus ( p = 0.0003) and open abdomens ( p < 0.0001). On multivariable regression, an increasing SAS independently predicted less complications (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.96; p = 0.009). An SAS ≤4 was associated with a 49.2% predicted chance of complications, greater rates of septic shock (9.7% vs. 3%, p = 0.01), respiratory failure (20.5% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.02), and death (24.1% vs. 7.5%, p < 0.0001). An SAS ≤ 4 did not correlate with surgical complications ( p = 0.1). CONCLUSION: The SAS accurately predicts postoperative complications in EGS patients undergoing urgent laparotomy, with an SAS ≤ 4 identifying patients at risk for septic shock, respiratory failure, and mortality. This tool can aid in rapidly determining postoperative disposition and resource allocation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

The effect of amantadine on acute cognitive disability after severe traumatic brain injury: An institutional pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Amantadine is used in the post-acute care setting to improve cognitive function after a traumatic brain injury. Its utility in the acute postinjury period is unknown. In this pilot study, we sought to examine the effect of amantadine on short-term cognitive disability among patients with a severe traumatic brain injury and hypothesized that patients receiving amantadine would have a greater improvement in disability throughout their acute hospitalization. METHODS: We performed a prospective, observational study of patients ≥18 years with severe traumatic brain injury (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8) at a level I trauma center between 2020 and 2022. Patients with penetrating trauma, death within 48 hours of admission, and no radiographic evidence of intracranial pathology were excluded. Patients were grouped according to whether they received amantadine. Our primary outcome was the change in cognitive disability, measured by the Disability Rating Scale (DRS), over the index hospitalization. RESULTS: There were 55 patients in the cohort: 41.8% (n = 23) received amantadine and 58.2% (n = 32) did not. There were higher rates of motor vehicle collisions (65.2% vs 46.9%, P = .02), diffuse axonal injury (47.8% vs 18.8%, P = .02), intracranial pressure monitor use (73.9% vs 21.9%, P = .0001), and propranolol use (73.9% vs 21.9%, P = .0001) in the amantadine. There was a larger improvement in DRS scores among patients receiving amantadine (7.8 vs 3.6, P = .001), and amantadine independently predicted improvement in DRS scores (ß, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-3.02, P = .03). Rates of discharge to traumatic brain injury rehabilitation were significantly higher in the amantadine group (73.9% vs 21.9%, P = .0002). CONCLUSION: Among patients with severe traumatic brain injury, amantadine use in the acute postinjury period may be associated with an improvement in cognitive disability and discharge to traumatic brain injury rehabilitation.

An Exploratory and Qualitative Analysis of Self-Reported Evaluations for Fever.

Background: Despite the high prevalence of post-operative fever, a variety of approaches are taken as to the components of a fever evaluation, when it should be undertaken, and when empiric antibiotic agents should be started. Hypothesis: There is a lack of consensus surrounding many common components of a post-operative fever evaluation. Patients and Methods: The Surgical Infection Society membership was surveyed to determine practices surrounding evaluation of post-operative fever. Eight scenarios were posed in febrile (38.5°C), post-operative general surgery or trauma patients, with 19 possible components of work-up (physical examination, complete blood count [CBC], fungal biomarkers, lactate and procalcitonin [PCT] concentrations, cultures, imaging) and management (antibiotic agents). Each scenario was then re-considered for intensive care unit (ICU) patients (intubated/unstable hemodynamics). Agreement on a parameter (<1/4 or >3/4 of respondents) achieved consensus, positive or negative. Parameters between had equipoise; α was set at 0.05. Results: Among the examined scenarios, only CBC and physical examination received positive consensus across most scenarios. Blood/urine cultures, imaging, lactate, inflammatory biomarkers, and the empiric administration of antibiotic agents did not reach consensus; support was variable depending on the clinical scenario, illness severity, and the individual preferences of the answering clinician. The qualitative portion of the survey identified "fever threshold and duration," "clinical suspicion," and "physiologic manifestation" as the most important factors for deciding about the initiation of a fever evaluation and the potential empiric administration of antibiotic agents. Conclusions: There is consensus only for physical and examination routine laboratory work when initiating the evaluation of febrile post-operative patients. However, there are multiple components of a fever evaluation that individual respondents would select depending on the clinical scenario and severity of illness. Parameters demonstrating equipoise are potential candidates for formal guidance or pragmatic prospective trials.

Surgical and procedural antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical ICU: an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee clinical consensus document.

The use of prophylactic measures, including perioperative antibiotics, for the prevention of surgical site infections is a standard of care across surgical specialties. Unfortunately, the routine guidelines used for routine procedures do not always account for many of the factors encountered with urgent/emergent operations and critically ill or high-risk patients. This clinical consensus document created by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee is one of a three-part series and reviews surgical and procedural antibiotic prophylaxis in the surgical intensive care unit. The purpose of this clinical consensus document is to provide practical recommendations, based on expert opinion, to assist intensive care providers with decision-making for surgical prophylaxis. We specifically evaluate the current state of periprocedural antibiotic management of external ventricular drains, orthopedic operations (closed and open fractures, silver dressings, local, antimicrobial adjuncts, spine surgery, subfascial drains), abdominal operations (bowel injury and open abdomen), and bedside procedures (thoracostomy tube, gastrostomy tube, tracheostomy).

A core outcome set for appendicitis: A consensus approach utilizing modified Delphi methodology.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is one of the most common pathologies encountered by general and acute care surgeons. The current literature is inconsistent, as it is fraught with outcome heterogeneity, especially in the area of nonoperative management. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for future appendicitis studies to facilitate outcome standardization and future data pooling. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted after identification of content experts in the field of appendicitis using both the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) landmark appendicitis articles and consensus from the EAST ad hoc COS taskforce on appendicitis. The study incorporated three rounds. Round 1 utilized free text outcome suggestions, then in rounds 2 and 3 the suggests were scored using a Likert scale of 1 to 9 with 1 to 3 denoting a less important outcome, 4 to 6 denoting an important but noncritical outcome, and 7 to 9 denoting a critically important outcome. Core outcome status consensus was defined a priori as >70% of scores 7 to 9 and <15% of scores 1 to 3. RESULTS: Seventeen panelists initially agreed to participate in the study with 16 completing the process (94%). Thirty-two unique potential outcomes were initially suggested in round 1 and 10 (31%) met consensus with one outcome meeting exclusion at the end of round 2. At completion of round 3, a total of 17 (53%) outcomes achieved COS consensus. CONCLUSION: An international panel of 16 appendicitis experts achieved consensus on 17 core outcomes that should be incorporated into future appendicitis studies as a minimum set of standardized outcomes to help frame future cohort-based studies on appendicitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level V.

A core outcome set for acute necrotizing pancreatitis: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma modified Delphi method consensus study.

BACKGROUND: The management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) has changed dramatically over the past 20 years including the use of less invasive techniques, the timing of interventions, nutritional management, and antimicrobial management. This study sought to create a core outcome set (COS) to help shape future research by establishing a minimal set of essential outcomes that will facilitate future comparisons and pooling of data while minimizing reporting bias. METHODS: A modified Delphi process was performed through involvement of ANP content experts. Each expert proposed a list of outcomes for consideration, and the panel anonymously scored the outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale. Core outcome consensus defined a priori as >70% of scores receiving 7 to 9 points and <15% of scores receiving 1 to 3 points. Feedback and aggregate data were shared between rounds with interclass correlation trends used to determine the end of the study. RESULTS: A total of 19 experts agreed to participate in the study with 16 (84%) participating through study completion. Forty-three outcomes were initially considered with 16 reaching consensuses after four rounds of the modified Delphi process. The final COS included outcomes related to mortality, organ failure, complications, interventions/management, and social factors. CONCLUSION: Through an iterative consensus process, content experts agreed on a COS for the management of ANP. This will help shape future research to generate data suitable for pooling and other statistical analyses that may guide clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level V.

Effect of Frailty on the Management of Suspected Choledocholithiasis.

INTRODUCTION: The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (ASGE-SAGES) guidelines for managing choledocholithiasis (CDL) omit patient-specific factors like frailty. We evaluated how frail patients with CDL undergoing same-admission cholecystectomy were managed within ASGE-SAGES guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed patients undergoing same-admission cholecystectomy for CDL and/or acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) from 2016 to 2019 at 12 US academic medical centers. Patients were grouped by Charlson comorbidity index into non-frail (NF), moderately frail (MF), and severely frail (SF). ASGE-SAGES guidelines stratified likelihood of CDL and were used to compare actual to suggested management. Rate of guideline deviation was our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included rates of surgical site infections (SSIs), biliary leaks, and 30-day surgical readmissions. Rates are presented as NF, MF, and SF. RESULTS: Among 844 patients, 43.3% (n = 365) were NF, 25.4% (n = 214) were MF, and 31.4% (n = 265) were SF. Frail patients were older (33y vs 56.7y vs 73.5y, P < .0001) and more likely to have ABP (32.6% vs 47.7% vs 43.8%, P = .0005). As frailty increased, guideline deviation increased (41.1% vs 43.5% vs 53.6%, P < .006). Severe frailty was predictive of guideline deviation compared to MF (aOR 1.47, 95% CI 1.02-2.12, P = .04) and NF (aOR 1.46, 95% CI 1.01-2.12, P = .04). There was no difference in SSIs (P = .2), biliary leaks (P = .7), or 30-day surgical readmission (P = .7). CONCLUSION: Frail patients with common bile duct stones had more management deviating from guidelines yet no difference in complications. Future guidelines should consider including frailty to optimize detection and management of CDL in this population.

Self-Reported Diagnosis and Management of Surgical Site Infection Highlights Lack of Objective Measures and Treatment Guidance.

Background: There is little guidance regarding empiric therapy for superficial surgical site infections (SSIs). Management of incisions with signs of SSI lacks consensus and management is variable among individual surgeons. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society was surveyed regarding management of SSIs. Cases were provided with varying wound descriptions, initial wound class (WC), post-operative day, and presence of a prosthesis. Responses were in multiple-choice format; statistics: χ2; α = 0.05. Results: Seventy-eight members responded. For appearance scenarios, respondents believed that both mild erythema (55%) and clear drainage (64%) could be observed, whereas substantial (>3 cm) erythema or purulence should be treated with complete (22% and 50%) or partial (55% and 40%) opening of the incision. Degree of erythema did not influence administration of antibiotic agents, but purulence was more likely than clear drainage to be treated with antibiotics (38% vs. 6%; p < 0.001). There were no differences based on WC, except that clean cases were more likely than higher WC scenarios to be treated with gram-positive coverage alone (WC 1 [26%] vs. 2 [10%] vs. 3 [13%] vs. 4 [4%]; p < 0.001). Post-operative day (POD) three appeared to be an inflection point for more aggressive treatment of suspected incisional SSI, with fewer (POD 0 [86%] vs. POD day 3 [54%]; p < 0.001) reporting observation. Respondents were more likely to obtain imaging, start broad-spectrum antibiotic agents, and return to the operating room for purulence in the presence of a mesh. Conclusions: Presented with escalating possibility of SSI, respondents reported lower rates of observation, increased use of antibiotic agents, and increased surgical drainage. Many scenarios lack consensus regarding appropriate therapy. The complete elimination of SSIs is unlikely to be accomplished soon, and this study provides a framework for understanding how surgeons approach SSIs, and potential areas for further research or pragmatic guidance.

A random forest model using flow cytometry data identifies pulmonary infection after thoracic injury.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic injury can cause impairment of lung function leading to respiratory complications such as pneumonia (PNA). There is increasing evidence that central memory T cells of the adaptive immune system play a key role in pulmonary immunity. We sought to explore whether assessment of cell phenotypes using flow cytometry (FCM) could be used to identify pulmonary infection after thoracic trauma. METHODS: We prospectively studied trauma patients with thoracic injuries who survived >48 hours at a Level 1 trauma center from 2014 to 2020. Clinical and FCM data from serum samples collected within 24 hours of admission were considered as potential variables. Random forest and logistic regression models were developed to estimate the risk of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated PNA. Variables were selected using backwards elimination, and models were internally validated with leave-one-out. RESULTS: Seventy patients with thoracic injuries were included (median age, 35 years [interquartile range (IQR), 25.25-51 years]; 62.9% [44 of 70] male, 61.4% [42 of 70] blunt trauma). The most common injuries included rib fractures (52 of 70 [74.3%]) and pulmonary contusions (26 of 70 [37%]). The incidence of PNA was 14 of 70 (20%). Median Injury Severity Score was similar for patients with and without PNA (30.5 [IQR, 22.6-39.3] vs. 26.5 [IQR, 21.6-33.3]). The final random forest model selected three variables (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, highest pulse rate in first 24 hours, and frequency of CD4 + central memory cells) that identified PNA with an area under the curve of 0.93, sensitivity of 0.91, and specificity of 0.88. A logistic regression with the same features had an area under the curve of 0.86, sensitivity of 0.76, and specificity of 0.85. CONCLUSION: Clinical and FCM data have diagnostic utility in the early identification of patients at risk of nosocomial PNA following thoracic injury. Signs of physiologic stress and lower frequency of central memory cells appear to be associated with higher rates of PNA after thoracic trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level IV.

Different Surgeon, Different Closure: Lack of Consensus on Appropriate Closure Technique for Various Case Scenarios.

Background: Many techniques for closure of surgical incisions are available to the surgeon, but there is minimal guidance regarding which technique(s) should be utilized at the conclusion of surgery and under what circumstances. Hypothesis: Management of incisions at the conclusion of surgery lacks consensus and varies among individual surgeons. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society membership was surveyed on the management of incisions at the conclusion of surgery. Several case scenarios were provided to test the influences of operation type, intra-operative contamination, and hemodynamic stability on incision management (e.g., close fascia or skin, use of incision/wound vacuum-assisted closure [VAC] device). Responses by two-thirds of participants were required to achieve consensus. Data analysis by χ2 test and logistic regression, a = 0.05. Response heterogeneity was quantified by the Shannon index (SI). Results: Among 78 respondents, consensus was achieved for elective splenectomy (91% close skin/dry dressing). Open appendectomy and left colectomy/end-colostomy had the greatest heterogeneity (SI, 1.68 and 1.63, respectively). During trauma laparotomy, the majority used damage control for hemodynamic instability (53%-67%) but not for hemodynamically stable patients (0%-1.3%; p < 0.001). Additional consensus was achieved for close skin/dry dressing for hemodynamically stable trauma splenectomy patients (87%) and fascia open/wound VAC for hemodynamically unstable colon resection/anastomosis (67%). Fecal diversion for rectal injury and colon resection/anastomosis (both when hemodynamically stable) had high heterogeneity (SI, 1.56 and 1.48, respectively). In penetrating trauma, sentiment was for more use of wet-to-dry dressings and incision/wound VAC with increased contamination in hemodynamically stable patients. Conclusions: Damage control was favored in hemodynamically unstable trauma patients, with use of wet-to-dry dressings and incision/wound VAC with spillage after penetrating trauma. However, most scenarios did not achieve consensus. High variability of practices regarding incision management at the conclusion of surgery was confirmed. Prospective studies and evidence-based guidance are needed to guide decision making at end-operation.

The females have spoken: A patient-centered national survey on the administration of emergent transfusions with the potential for future fetal harm.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic hemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable death. Early in the resuscitation, only RhD-positive red blood cells are likely to be available, which poses a small risk of causing harm to a future fetus if transfused to an RhD-negative females of childbearing age (CBA), that is, 15 to 49 years old. We sought to characterize how the population, in particular females of CBA, felt about emergency blood administration vis-a-vis potential future fetal harm. METHODS: A national survey was performed using Facebook advertisements in three waves from January 2021 to January 2022. The advertisements directed users to the survey site with seven demographic questions and four questions on accepting transfusion with differing probabilities for future fetal harm (none/any/1:100/1:10,000). Acceptance of transfusion questions were scored on 3-point Likert scale (likely/neutral/unlikely). Only completed responses by females were analyzed. RESULTS: Advertisements were viewed 16,600,430 times by 2,169,805 people with 15,396 advertisement clicks and 2,873 surveys initiated. Most (2,256 of 2,873 [79%]) were fully completed. Majority (2,049 of 2,256 [90%]) of respondents were female. Eighty percent of females (1,645 of 2,049) were of CBA. Most females responded "likely" or "neutral" when asked whether they would accept a lifesaving transfusion if the following risk of fetal harm were present: no risk (99%), any risk (83%), 1:100 risk (85%), and 1:10,000 risk (92%). There were no differences between females of CBA versus non-CBA with respect to the likelihood of accepting lifesaving transfusion with any potential for future fetal harm ( p = 0.24). CONCLUSION: This national survey suggests that most females would accept lifesaving transfusion even with the potential low risk of future fetal harm. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.