Moving the needle on time to resuscitation: An EAST prospective multicenter study of vascular access in hypotensive injured patients using trauma video review.

BACKGROUND: Vascular access in hypotensive trauma patients is challenging. Little evidence exists on the time required and success rates of vascular access types. We hypothesized that intraosseous (IO) access would be faster and more successful than peripheral intravenous (PIV) and central venous catheter (CVC) access in hypotensive patients. METHODS: An EAST prospective multicenter trial was performed; 19 centers provided data. Trauma video review was used to evaluate the resuscitations of hypotensive (systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg) trauma patients. Highly granular data from video recordings were abstracted. Data collected included vascular access attempt type, location, success rate, and procedural time. Demographic and injury-specific variables were obtained from the medical record. Success rates, procedural durations, and time to resuscitation were compared among access strategies (IO vs. PIV vs. CVC). RESULTS: There were 1,410 access attempts that occurred in 581 patients with a median age of 40 years (27-59 years) and an Injury Severity Score of 22 [10-34]. Nine hundred thirty-two PIV, 204 IO, and 249 CVC were attempted. Seventy percent of access attempts were successful but were significantly less likely to be successful in females (64% vs. 71%, p = 0.01). Median time to any access was 5.0 minutes (3.2-8.0 minutes). Intraosseous had higher success rates than PIV or CVC (93% vs. 67% vs. 59%, p < 0.001) and remained higher after subsequent failures (second attempt, 85% vs. 59% vs. 69%, p = 0.08; third attempt, 100% vs. 33% vs. 67%, p = 0.002). Duration varied by access type (IO, 36 [23-60] seconds; PIV, 44 [31-61] seconds; CVC 171 [105-298]seconds) and was significantly different between IO versus CVC ( p < 0.001) and PIV versus CVC ( p < 0.001) but not PIV versus IO. Time to resuscitation initiation was shorter in patients whose initial access attempt was IO, 5.8 minutes versus 6.7 minutes ( p = 0.015). This was more pronounced in patients arriving to the hospital with no established access (5.7 minutes vs. 7.5 minutes, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Intraosseous is as fast as PIV and more likely to be successful compared with other access strategies in hypotensive trauma patients. Patients whose initial access attempt was IO were resuscitated more expeditiously. Intraosseous access should be considered a first line therapy in hypotensive trauma patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

Factors That Predict Biological Aggressiveness in Estrogen Receptor-Positive / Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative / Lymph Node-Negative Breast Cancer.

Background: Traditionally, breast cancer is staged using TNM criteria: tumor size (T), nodal status (N), and metastasis (M). The Oncotype DX assay provides a recurrence score (RS) based on genomics that predicts the likelihood of distant recurrence in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-)/lymph node-negative (LN-) tumors. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients with ER+/HER2-/LN- breast cancer tumors who were evaluated between 2007 and 2017 with Oncotype DX RS. We compared the RS to tumor size, patient age, progesterone receptor (PR) status, and LN immunohistochemistry to assess for factors that may independently predict recurrence risk. We also compared tumor size to tumor grade. Results: The data set included 296 tumors: 248 ER+/PR-positive (PR+)/HER2- and 48 ER+/PR-negative (PR-)/HER2-. RS ranged from 0 to 66, patient age ranged from 33 to 77 years, and tumor size ranged from 1 to 65 mm. No significant correlation was found between age and RS (r=-0.073, P=0.208). PR- tumors had a significantly higher RS regardless of size (PR- mean RS 30.8 ± 12.7; PR+ mean RS 16.3 ± 7.3; t(53)=7.6, P<0.0001). No significant correlation was seen between tumor size and RS for all tumors (r=-0.028, P=0.635), and this finding remained true for the PR+ tumor subgroup (r=0.114, P=0.072). However, a significant negative correlation was seen between tumor size and RS in the PR- subgroup (r=-0.343, P=0.017). Further analysis to ensure that differences in tumor grade did not account for this correlation showed equal distribution of well differentiated, moderately differentiated, and poorly differentiated tumors with no significant correlation between tumor size and grade. Conclusion: Increasing tumor size may not be associated with increasing biological aggressiveness. Traditionally, smaller tumors are thought to be lower risk and larger tumors higher risk, with a tendency to use chemotherapy with large tumors. However, our data showed a negative correlation between tumor size and RS in the PR- subgroup. A tumor with PR negativity that reaches a large size without metastasizing may suggest a favorable tumor biology. These tumors may not receive as much benefit from chemotherapy as previously thought. Also, the higher RS seen in smaller PR- tumors may demonstrate PR- status as a predictor for higher risk of distant recurrence. We propose that all tumors meeting the ER+/PR-/LN- criteria, regardless of size, should be considered for genotyping, with the RS used to guide chemotherapy benefit.