Ketamine For Acute Pain After Trauma (KAPT): A Pragmatic, Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Non-narcotic intravenous medications may be a beneficial adjunct to oral multimodal pain regimens (MMPRs) which reduce but do not eliminate opioid exposure and prescribing after trauma. We hypothesized that the addition of a sub-dissociative ketamine infusion (KI) to a standardized oral MMPR reduces inpatient opioid exposure. METHODS: Eligible adult trauma patients admitted to the intermediate or intensive care unit were randomized upon admission to our institutional MMPR per usual care (UC) or UC plus sub-dissociative KI for 24 to 72 hours after arrival. The primary outcome was morphine milligram equivalents per day (MME/d) and secondary outcomes included total MME, discharge with an opioid prescription (OP%), and rates of ketamine side effects. Bayesian posterior probabilities (pp) were calculated using neutral priors. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were included in the final analysis with 144 randomized to KI and 156 to UC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The injury severity scores for KI were 19 [14, 29] versus UC 22 [14, 29]. The KI group had a lower rate of long-bone fracture (37% versus 49%) and laparotomy (16% versus 24%). Patients receiving KI had an absolute reduction of 7 MME/day, 96 total MME, and 5% in OP%. Additionally, KI had a relative risk (RR) reduction of 19% in MME/day (RR 0.81 [0.69 - 0.95], pp = 99%), 20% in total MME (RR 0.80 [0.64, 0.99], pp = 98%), and 8% in OP% (RR 0.92 [0.76, 1.11], pp = 81%). The KI group had a higher rate of delirium (11% versus 6%); however, rates of other side effects such as arrythmias and unplanned intubations were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Addition of a sub-dissociative ketamine infusion to an oral MMPR resulted in a decrease in opioid exposure in severely injured patients. Sub-dissociative ketamine infusions can be used as a safe adjunct to decrease opioid exposure in monitored settings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I; Therapeutic/Care Management.

Impact of Intra-Operative Shock and Resuscitation on Surgical Site Infections After Trauma Laparotomy.

Background: Patients undergoing trauma laparotomy experience high rates of surgical site infection (SSI). Although intra-operative shock is a likely contributor to SSI risk, little is known about the relation between shock, intra-operative restoration of physiologic normalcy, and SSI development. Patients and Methods: A retrospective review of trauma patients who underwent emergent definitive laparotomy was performed. Using shock index and base excess at the beginning and end of laparotomy, patients were classified as normal, persistent shock, resuscitated, or new shock. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of organ/space SSI, superficial/deep SSI, and any SSI. Results: Of 1,191 included patients, 600 (50%) were categorized as no shock, 248 (21%) as resuscitated, 109 (9%) as new shock, and 236 (20%) as persistent shock, with incidence of any SSI as 51 (9%), 28 (11%), 26 (24%), and 32 (14%), respectively. These rates were similar in organ/space and superficial/deep SSIs. On multivariable analysis, resuscitated, new shock, and persistent shock were associated with increased odds of organ/space SSI (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-3.5; p < 0.001) and any SSI (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-3.2; p < 0.001), but no increased risk of superficial/deep SSI (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.6; p = 0.331). Conclusions: Although the trajectory of physiologic status influenced SSI, the presence of shock at any time during trauma laparotomy, regardless of restoration of physiologic normalcy, was associated with increased odds of SSI. Further investigation is warranted to determine the relation between peri-operative shock and SSI in trauma patients.

Acute pain management after trauma: What you need to know.

ABSTRACT: Effective acute pain control is mandatory after injury. Opioids continue to be a pillar acute pain management of strategies despite not being as effective as some nonnarcotic alternatives. An acute pain management strategy after trauma should be thoughtful, effective, and responsible. A thoughtful approach includes managing a patient's expectations for acute pain control and ensuring that interventions purposefully and rationally affect the domain of pain that is uncontrolled. An effective pain management strategy includes a multimodal approach using acetaminophen, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and regional anesthesia. A responsible acute pain management approach includes knowing the relative strengths of the opioids prescribed and standardized approach to opioid prescribing at discharge to minimize diversion. Acute pain management is quite understudied, and future considerations include a reliable objective measurement of pain and the evaluation of nonmedication acute pain interventions.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Severe Abdominal Trauma: A Secondary Analysis of the Damage Control Laparotomy Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following abdominal trauma. We hypothesized that patients undergoing definitive laparotomy (DEF) would have better PROs compared to those treated with damage control laparotomy (DCL). METHODS: The DCL Trial randomized DEF versus DCL in abdominal trauma. PROs were measured using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D) questionnaire at discharge and six months postdischarge (1 = perfect health, 0 = death, and <0 = worse than death) and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Checklist-Civilian. Unadjusted Bayesian analysis with a neutral prior was used to assess the posterior probability of achieving minimal clinically important difference. RESULTS: Of 39 randomized patients (21 DEF versus 18 DCL), 8 patients died (7 DEF versus 1 DCL). Of those who survived, 28 completed the EQ-5D at discharge (12 DEF versus 16 DCL) and 25 at 6 mo (12 DEF versus 13 DCL). Most patients were male (79%) with a median age of 30 (interquartile range (IQR) 21-42), suffered blunt injury (56%), and were severely injured (median injury severity score 33, IQR 21 - 42). Median EQ-5D value at discharge was 0.20 (IQR 0.06 - 0.52) DEF versus 0.31 (IQR -0.03 - 0.43) DCL, and at six months 0.51 (IQR 0.30 - 0.74) DEF versus 0.50 (IQR 0.28 - 0.84) DCL. The posterior probability of minimal clinically important difference DEF versus DCL at discharge and six months was 16% and 23%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Functional deficits for trauma patients persist beyond the acute setting regardless of laparotomy status. These deficits warrant longitudinal studies to better inform patients on recovery expectations.

An opioid-minimizing multimodal pain regimen reduces opioid exposure and pain in trauma-injured patients at high risk for opioid misuse: Secondary analysis from the mast trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening to identify patients at risk for opioid misuse after trauma is recommended but not commonly used to guide perioperative opioid management interventions. The Multimodal Analgesic Strategies for Trauma trial demonstrated that an opioid-minimizing multimodal pain regimen reduced opioid exposure in a heterogeneous trauma patient population. Here, we assess the efficacy of the Multimodal Analgesic Strategies for Trauma multimodal pain regimen in a critical patient subgroup who screened at high risk for opioid misuse. METHODS: The Multimodal Analgesic Strategies for Trauma trial compared an opioid-minimizing multimodal pain regimen (oral acetaminophen, naproxen, gabapentin, lidocaine patch, as-needed opioid) against an original multimodal pain regimen (intravenous followed by oral acetaminophen, 48-hour celecoxib and pregabalin, followed by naproxen and gabapentin, scheduled tramadol, as-needed opioid), in a randomized trial conducted from April 2018 to March 2019. A total of 631 enrolled patients were classified either as low- or high-risk via the Opioid Risk Tool. Bayesian analyses evaluated the moderating influence of Opioid Risk Tool risk (high/low) on the effect of Multimodal Analgesic Strategies for Trauma multimodal pain regimen (versus original) on opioid exposure (morphine milligram equivalents/day), opioids prescribed at discharge, and pain scores. RESULTS: Multimodal Analgesic Strategies for Trauma multimodal pain regimen effectively reduced morphine milligram equivalents/day in low- and high-Opioid Risk Tool risk groups. Moderation was observed for opioids at discharge and pain scores; Multimodal Analgesic Strategies for Trauma multimodal pain regimen was effective in the high-risk group only (opioids at discharge: 63% vs 77%, relative risk = 0.86, 95% Bayesian credible interval [0.66-1.08], posterior probability (relative risk <1) = 90%; pain scores: b = 3.8, 95% Bayesian credible interval [3.2-4.4] vs b = 4.0, 95% Bayesian credible interval [3.4-4.6], posterior probability (b <0) = 87%). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to show the moderating influence of opioid misuse risk on the effectiveness of an opioid-minimizing multimodal pain regimen. The Opioid Risk Tool was useful in identifying high-risk patients for whom the Multimodal Analgesic Strategies for Trauma multimodal pain regimen is recommended for perioperative pain management.

Poor Oral Health in Trauma Intensive Care Unit Patients: Application of a Novel Oral Health Score.

Background: Although oral hygiene in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been shown to reduce hospital-associated infections, baseline and progressive oral health are often not reported because of lack of a standardized tool. The Oral Health Risk Assessment Value Index (OHRAVI) is a comprehensive oral assessment validated by dental providers. This study hypothesizes that non-dental providers can use OHRAVI in trauma ICU patients with minimal training and acceptable inter-rater reliability (IRR). Patients and Methods: Dentulous adult patients in the ICU at a level 1 trauma center were scored, excluding those with severe orofacial trauma. The eight categories of the OHRAVI were scored 0 to 3 (best to worst) with summed total and index (average) score. Index scores 1 or less need routine oral care; greater than 1-2 require moderate care; and greater than 2-3 require extensive oromaxillofacial care. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by two to three raters with Krippendorff's α (≥0.80 for good and ≥0.667 for acceptable). Results: Eighty-four ratings were completed across 34 patients, with 16 patients (47%) scored by all three raters. Ten patients (29%) had an index score <1. The average index score for patients was 1.28 (median, 1.34; range, 0.63-2). Krippendorff's α for index score was 0.86. For individual categories, α ranged from 0.44 to 1, with six of the eight categories achieving an α ≥ 0.667. Conclusions: With minimal training, non-dental providers were able to use OHRAVI with a good IRR for index score and an acceptable/good IRR for most individual categories. This novel, simple, comprehensive oral health score could help standardize oral assessment and facilitate future studies of peri-operative oral hygiene interventions.