The size paradox: An analysis of tube thoracostomy in trauma.

BACKGROUND: Debate continues over chest tube (CT) size for traumatic hemothorax (HTX) and pneumothorax (PTX). We compared CT failure and opioid use between large-bore chest tubes (LB-CT) and small-bore chest tubes (SB-CT). METHODS: A retrospective study comparing trauma patients with SB-CT (≤14Fr) or LB-CT (≥24Fr) was performed. CT failure includes HTX, PTX, or empyema requiring intervention. Secondary outcomes included opioid use (MME), mortality, and favorable discharge. RESULTS: Of 252 patients, 65.1 â€‹% had SB-CT. SB-CT were older with lower ISS. Failure rate was lower for SB-CT (9.2 vs 22.7 â€‹%, p â€‹= â€‹0.003), as was opioid use (332 vs 767, p â€‹< â€‹0.001). In adjusted analysis there was no difference in CT failure between SB-CT and LB-CT. Subgroup analysis found SB-CT had lower total MME (234 vs 342, p â€‹= â€‹0.018). CONCLUSIONS: This study found no major differences in CT failure or opioid use by CT size, suggesting SB-CT are a safe, and effective alternative to LB-CT in trauma.

The Effect of Frailty in Predicting Outcomes of Rib Fractures Among Elderly Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Rib fractures are consequential injuries for geriatric trauma patients. Frailty has been associated with adverse outcomes in this population. The Rib Fracture Frailty Index (RFF) and 5-factor modified Frailty Index (mFI) are 2 validated frailty metrics. Research assessing inclusion of frailty metrics in geriatric rib fractures triage protocols is limited. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed for trauma patients ≥50 years old with rib fractures admitted to a Level I trauma center, which currently uses percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC%) to triage rib fractures patients. Frailty metrics (RFF & mFI) were calculated retrospectively, stratifying patients as low, moderate, or severe frailty. Unfavorable discharge disposition (UDD) was defined as discharge to facility or death. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios were used to assess frailty with outcome variables. RESULTS: In total, 834 patients were included from August 2018 - May 2023, with mean age of 69.1. A majority had low frailty (64.0 vs 40.3%), followed by moderate frailty (21.1 vs 30.7%), then severe frailty (14.9 vs 29.0%) for RFF and mFI, respectively. Age, sex, and ISS differed between groups. For RFF, increased frailty was associated with longer hospital and ICU length of stay. Neither frailty metric was associated with unplanned ICU transfer or intubation. In the adjusted analysis, frail patients were more likely to have UDD (OR 8.9, CI 3.4-23.0, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: While both frailty metrics were predictive of UDD, neither was associated with ICU transfer or intubation, suggesting that frailty does not enhance the accuracy of our current protocol using FVC%.

Cost-effectiveness of Staple Line Reinforcement in Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of staple-line reinforcement in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Exponential increases in surgical costs have underscored the critical need for evidence-based methods to determine the relative value of surgical devices. One such device is staple-line reinforcement, thought to decrease bleeding rates in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. METHODS: Two intervention arms were modeled, staple-line reinforcement and standard nonreinforced stapling. Bleed and leak rates and 30-day treatment costs were obtained from national and state registries. Quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) values were drawn from previous literature. Device prices were drawn from institutional data. A final incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated, and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 346,530 patient records from 2012 to 2018 were included. Complication rates for the reinforced and standard cohorts were 0.05% for major bleed in both cohorts ( P = 0.8841); 0.45% compared with 0.59% for minor bleed ( P < 0.0001); and 0.24% compared with 0.26% for leak ( P = 0.4812). Median cost for a major bleed was $5552 ($3287, $16,817) and $2406 ($1861, $3484) for a minor bleed. Median leak cost was $9897 ($4589, $21,619) and median cost for patients who did not experience a bleed, leak, or other serious complication was $1908 ($1712, $2739). Mean incremental cost of reinforced stapling compared with standard was $819.60/surgery. Net QALY gain with reinforced stapling compared with standard was 0.00002. The resultant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $40,553,000/QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses failed to produce a value below $150,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with standard stapling, reinforced stapling reduces minor postoperative bleeding but not major bleeding or leaks and is not cost-effective if routinely used in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy.

A Mobile Phone-Based Program to Promote Healthy Behaviors Among Adults With Prediabetes Who Declined Participation in Free Diabetes Prevention Programs: Mixed-Methods Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that Diabetes Prevention Programs (DPPs) can delay or prevent progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), few individuals with prediabetes enroll in offered programs. This may be in part because many individuals with prediabetes have low levels of autonomous motivation (ie, motivation that arises from internal sources) to prevent T2DM. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a mobile health (mHealth) intervention designed to increase autonomous motivation and healthy behaviors among adults with prediabetes who previously declined participation free DPPs. In addition, the study aims to examine changes in autonomous motivation among adults offered 2 versions of the mHealth program compared with an information-only control group. METHODS: In this 12-week, parallel, 3-arm, mixed-methods pilot randomized controlled trial, participants were randomized to (1) a group that received information about prediabetes and strategies to prevent T2DM (control); (2) a group that received a mHealth app that aims to increase autonomous motivation among users (app-only); or (3) a group that received the app plus a physical activity tracker and wireless-enabled digital scale for self-monitoring (app-plus). Primary outcome measures included rates of intervention uptake (number of individuals enrolled/number of individuals assessed for eligibility), retention (number of 12-week survey completers/number of participants), and adherence (number of device-usage days). The secondary outcome measure was change in autonomous motivation (measured using the Treatment Self-Regulation Questionnaire), which was examined using difference-in-difference analysis. Furthermore, we conducted postintervention qualitative interviews with participants. RESULTS: Overall, 28% (69/244) of eligible individuals were randomized; of these, 80% (55/69) completed the 12-week survey. Retention rates were significantly higher among app-plus participants than participants in the other 2 study arms combined (P=.004, χ2). No significant differences were observed in adherence rates between app-only and app-plus participants (43 days vs 37 days; P=.34). Among all participants, mean autonomous motivation measures were relatively high at baseline (6.0 of 7.0 scale), with no statistically significant within- or between-group differences in follow-up scores. In qualitative interviews (n=15), participants identified reasons that they enjoyed using the app (eg, encouraged self-reflection), reasons that they did not enjoy using the app (eg, did not consider personal circumstances), and strategies to improve the intervention (eg, increased interpersonal contact). CONCLUSIONS: Among individuals with prediabetes who did not engage in free DPPs, this mHealth intervention was feasible and acceptable. Future work should (1) examine the effectiveness of a refined intervention on clinically relevant outcomes (eg, weight loss) among a larger population of DPP nonenrollees with low baseline autonomous motivation and (2) identify other factors associated with DPP nonenrollment, which may serve as additional potential targets for interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03025607; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03025607 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73cvaSAie).