High frequencies of alpha common cold coronavirus/SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive functional CD4+ and CD8+ memory T cells are associated with protection from symptomatic and fatal SARS-CoV-2 infections in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients.

Background: Cross-reactive SARS-CoV-2-specific memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells are present in up to 50% of unexposed, pre-pandemic, healthy individuals (UPPHIs). However, the characteristics of cross-reactive memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells associated with subsequent protection of asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients (i.e., unvaccinated individuals who never develop any COVID-19 symptoms despite being infected with SARS-CoV-2) remains to be fully elucidated. Methods: This study compares the antigen specificity, frequency, phenotype, and function of cross-reactive memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells between common cold coronaviruses (CCCs) and SARS-CoV-2. T-cell responses against genome-wide conserved epitopes were studied early in the disease course in a cohort of 147 unvaccinated COVID-19 patients who were divided into six groups based on the severity of their symptoms. Results: Compared to severely ill COVID-19 patients and patients with fatal COVID-19 outcomes, the asymptomatic COVID-19 patients displayed significantly: (i) higher rates of co-infection with the 229E alpha species of CCCs (α-CCC-229E); (ii) higher frequencies of cross-reactive functional CD134+CD137+CD4+ and CD134+CD137+CD8+ T cells that cross-recognized conserved epitopes from α-CCCs and SARS-CoV-2 structural, non-structural, and accessory proteins; and (iii) lower frequencies of CCCs/SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive exhausted PD-1+TIM3+TIGIT+CTLA4+CD4+ and PD-1+TIM3+TIGIT+CTLA4+CD8+ T cells, detected both ex vivo and in vitro. Conclusions: These findings (i) support a crucial role of functional, poly-antigenic α-CCCs/SARS-CoV-2 cross-reactive memory CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, induced following previous CCCs seasonal exposures, in protection against subsequent severe COVID-19 disease and (ii) provide critical insights into developing broadly protective, multi-antigen, CD4+, and CD8+ T-cell-based, universal pan-Coronavirus vaccines capable of conferring cross-species protection.

Comparing Accuracy of Night Radiology Interpretations for Pediatric Trauma: Radiology Residents Versus Attending Teleradiologists.

Background: Overnight radiology coverage for pediatric trauma patients (PTPs) is addressed with a combination of on-call radiology residents (RRs) and/or attending teleradiologists (ATs); however, the accuracy of these two groups has not been investigated for PTPs. We aimed to compare the accuracy of RRs vs AT interpretations of computed tomography (CT) scans for PTPs. Methods: Pediatric trauma patients (<18 years old) at a single level-I adult/level-II pediatric trauma center were studied in a retrospective analysis (3/2019-5/2020). Computed tomography scans interpreted by both RRs and ATs were included. Radiology residents were compared to ATs for time to interpretation (TTI) and accuracy compared to faculty attending radiologist interpretation, using the validated RADPEER scoring system. Additionally, RR and AT accuracies were compared to a previously studied adult cohort during the same time-period. Results: 42 PTPs (270 interpretations) and 1053 adults (8226 interpretations) were included. Radiology residents had similar rates of discrepancy (13.3% vs 13.3%), major discrepancy (4.4% vs 4.4%), missed findings (9.6% vs 12.6%), and overcalls (3.7% vs .7%) vs ATs (all P > .05). Mean TTI was shorter for RRs (55.9 vs 90.4 minutes, P < .001). Radiology residents had a higher discrepancy rate for PTPs (13.3% vs 7.5%, P = .01) than adults. Attending teleradiologists had a similar discrepancy rate for PTPs and adults (13.3% vs 8.9%, P = .07). Discussion: When interpreting PTP CT imaging, RRs had similar discrepancy rates but faster TTI than ATs. Radiology residents had a higher discrepancy rate for PTP CTs than RR interpretation of adult patients, indicating both RRs and ATs need more focused training in the interpretation of PTP studies.

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.

Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on Utilization of Emergency Medical Services in New York City.

Background: This study evaluates trends in the utilization of emergency medical services (EMS) in New York City, the "epicenter" of the first "wave" of the coronavirus pandemic. We hypothesize that EMS call volumes decreased overall in New York City during the first year of the pandemic, specifically with respect to trauma/injury calls. Contrarily, we posit that calls for "sick" events increased given pervasive fear of virus transmission. Materials and Methods: Retrospective New York City EMS calls data (January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020) were obtained from the NYC Open Data/EMS Incident Dispatch database. Total EMS calls, trauma/injury calls, and "sick" event calls were collected for New York City and for all five boroughs. Census data for each borough were used to weigh daily EMS calls per 100,000 individuals. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare pre-pandemic (2019 to March 2020) versus pandemic (April 2020 to December 2020) EMS call volumes, p = 0.05. Results: Median daily EMS calls per 100,000 individuals decreased 21.6% at the start of the pandemic across New York City (pre-pandemic, 3,262 calls; pandemic, 2,556 calls; p < 0.001) and similarly decreased when stratified by borough (all, p < 0.001). Median daily trauma/injury and sick event calls per 100,000 also decreased in New York City and the five boroughs from pre-pandemic to pandemic time periods (all, p < 0.001). Discussion and Conclusions: These data reflect an unprecedented window into EMS utilization during an infectious disease pandemic. As decreased EMS utilization for multiple conditions likely reflects delayed or impeded access to care, utilization data have important implications for provision of acute care services during possible future disruptions related to the pandemic.

An initiative to assess and improve the resources and patient care processes used among Chest Wall Injury Society collaborative centers study (CWIS-CC2).

BACKGROUND: Over the last two decades, the acute management of rib fractures has changed significantly. In 2021, the Chest Wall injury Society (CWIS) began recognizing centers that epitomize their mission as CWIS Collaborative Centers. The primary aim of this study was to determine the resources, surgical expertise, access to care, and institutional support that are present among centers. METHODS: A survey was performed including all CWIS Collaborative Centers evaluating the resources available at their hospital for the treatment of patients with chest wall injury. Data about each chest wall injury center care process, availability of resources, institutional support, research support, and educational offerings were recorded. RESULTS: Data were collected from 20 trauma centers resulting in an 80% response rate. These trauma centers were made up of 5 international and 15 US-based trauma centers. Eighty percent (16 of 20) have dedicated care team members for the evaluation and management of rib fractures. Twenty-five percent (5 of 20) have a dedicated rib fracture service with a separate call schedule. Staffing for chest wall injury clinics consists of a multidisciplinary team: with attending surgeons in all clinics, 80% (8 of 10) with advanced practice providers and 70% (7 of 10) with care coordinators. Forty percent (8 of 20) of centers have dedicated rib fracture research support, and 35% (7 of 20) have surgical stabilization of rib fracture (SSRF)-related grants. Forty percent (8 of 20) of centers have marketing support, and 30% (8 of 20) have a web page support to bring awareness to their center. At these trauma centers, a median of 4 (1-9) surgeons perform SSRFs. In the majority of trauma centers, the trauma surgeons perform SSRF. CONCLUSION: Considerable similarities and differences exist within these CWIS collaborative centers. These differences in resources are hypothesis generating in determining the optimal chest wall injury center. These findings may generate several patient care and team process questions to optimize patient care, patient experience, provider satisfaction, research productivity, education, and outreach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level V.

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.

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.

Analysis and comparison of SARS-CoV-2 variant antibodies and neutralizing activity for 6 months after a booster mRNA vaccine in a healthcare worker population.

Introduction: In the context of recurrent surges of SARS-CoV-2 infections, a detailed characterization of antibody persistence over a 6-month period following vaccine booster dose is necessary to crafting effective public health policies on repeat vaccination. Methods: To characterize the SARS-CoV-2 antibody profile of a healthcare worker population over a 6-month period following mRNA vaccination and booster dose. 323 healthcare workers at an academic medical center in Orange County, California who had completed primary vaccination and booster dose against SARS-CoV-2 were recruited for the study. A total of 690 blood specimens over a 6-month period were collected via finger-stick blood and analyzed for the presence of antibodies against 9 SARS-CoV-2 antigens using a coronavirus antigen microarray. Results: The primary outcome of this study was the average SARS-CoV-2 antibody level as measured using a novel coronavirus antigen microarray. Additional outcomes measured include levels of antibodies specific to SARS-CoV-2 variants including Delta, Omicron BA.1, and BA.2. We also measured SARS-CoV-2 neutralization capacity for a subset of the population to confirm correlation with antibody levels. Although antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 wane throughout the 6-month period following a booster dose, antibody levels remain higher than pre-boost levels. However, a booster dose of vaccine based on the original Wuhan strain generates approximately 3-fold lower antibody reactivity against Omicron variants BA.1 and BA.2 as compared to the vaccine strain. Despite waning antibody levels, neutralization activity against the vaccine strain is maintained throughout the 6-month period. Discussion: In the context of recurrent surges of SARS-CoV-2 infections, our data indicate that breakthrough infections are likely driven by novel variants with different antibody specificity and not by time since last dose of vaccination, indicating that development of vaccinations specific to these novel variants is necessary to prevent future surges of SARS-CoV-2 infections.

Risk factors for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity in a health care worker population during the early pandemic.

BACKGROUND: While others have reported severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus 2(SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence studies in health care workers (HCWs), we leverage the use of a highly sensitive coronavirus antigen microarray to identify a group of seropositive health care workers who were missed by daily symptom screening that was instituted prior to any epidemiologically significant local outbreak. Given that most health care facilities rely on daily symptom screening as the primary method to identify SARS-CoV-2 among health care workers, here, we aim to determine how demographic, occupational, and clinical variables influence SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among health care workers. METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional survey of HCWs for SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity conducted from May 15th to June 30th 2020 at a 418-bed academic hospital in Orange County, California. From an eligible population of 5,349 HCWs, study participants were recruited in two ways: an open cohort, and a targeted cohort. The open cohort was open to anyone, whereas the targeted cohort that recruited HCWs previously screened for COVID-19 or work in high-risk units. A total of 1,557 HCWs completed the survey and provided specimens, including 1,044 in the open cohort and 513 in the targeted cohort. Demographic, occupational, and clinical variables were surveyed electronically. SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was assessed using a coronavirus antigen microarray (CoVAM), which measures antibodies against eleven viral antigens to identify prior infection with 98% specificity and 93% sensitivity. RESULTS: Among tested HCWs (n = 1,557), SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity was 10.8%, and risk factors included male gender (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.05-2.06), exposure to COVID-19 outside of work (2.29, 1.14-4.29), working in food or environmental services (4.85, 1.51-14.85), and working in COVID-19 units (ICU: 2.28, 1.29-3.96; ward: 1.59, 1.01-2.48). Amongst 1,103 HCWs not previously screened, seropositivity was 8.0%, and additional risk factors included younger age (1.57, 1.00-2.45) and working in administration (2.69, 1.10-7.10). CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity is significantly higher than reported case counts even among HCWs who are meticulously screened. Seropositive HCWs missed by screening were more likely to be younger, work outside direct patient care, or have exposure outside of work.

Non-surgical management and analgesia strategies for older adults with multiple rib fractures: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and joint practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma and the Chest Wall Injury Society.

BACKGROUND: Chest wall injury in older adults is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality. Optimal nonsurgical management strategies for these patients have not been fully defined regarding level of care, incentive spirometry (IS), noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), and the use of ketamine, epidural, and other locoregional approaches to analgesia. METHODS: Relevant questions regarding older patients with significant chest wall injury with patient population(s), intervention(s), comparison(s), and appropriate selected outcomes were chosen. These focused on intensive care unit (ICU) admission, IS, NIPPV, and analgesia including ketamine, epidural analgesia, and locoregional nerve blocks. A systematic literature search and review were conducted, our data were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively, and the quality of evidence was assessed per the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. No funding was used. RESULTS: Our literature review (PROSPERO 2020-CRD42020201241, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Web of Science, January 15, 2020) resulted in 151 studies. Intensive care unit admission was qualitatively not superior for any defined cohort other than by clinical assessment. Poor IS performance was associated with prolonged hospital length of stay, pulmonary complications, and unplanned ICU admission. Noninvasive positive pressure ventilation was associated with 85% reduction in odds of pneumonia ( p < 0.0001) and 81% reduction in odds of mortality ( p = 0.03) in suitable patients without risk of airway loss. Ketamine use demonstrated no significant reduction in pain score but a trend toward reduced opioid use. Epidural and other locoregional analgesia techniques did not affect pneumonia, length of mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, or mortality. CONCLUSION: We do not recommend for or against routine ICU admission. We recommend use of IS to inform ICU status and conditionally recommend use of NIPPV in patients without risk of airway loss. We offer no recommendation for or against ketamine, epidural, or other locoregional analgesia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic Review/Meta-analysis; Level IV.

Prospective single-center paradigm shift of surgical stabilization of rib fractures with decreased length of stay and operative time with an intrathoracic approach.

INTRODUCTION: Intrathoracic surgical stabilization of rib fractures allows for a novel approach to rib fracture repair. This approach can help minimize muscle disruption, which may improve patient recovery compared with traditional extrathoracic plating. We hypothesized patients undergoing intrathoracic plating (ITP) to have a shorter length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS compared with extrathoracic plating (ETP). METHODS: A prospective observational paradigm shift study was performed from November 2017 until September 2021. Patients 18 and older who underwent surgical stabilization of rib fractures were included. Patients with ahead Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥3 were excluded. Patients undergoing ETP (July 2017 to October 2019) were compared with ITP (November 2019 to September 2021) with Pearson χ 2 tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, with the primary outcome being LOS and ICU LOS. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients were included, 59 (61%) underwent ETP and 37 (38%) underwent ITP. The most common mechanism of injury was motor vehicle collision (29%) followed by falls (23%). There were no differences between groups in age, comorbidities, insurance, discharge disposition and injury severity score (18 vs. 19, p = 0.89). Intrathoracic plating had a shorter LOS (10 days vs. 8 days, p = 0.04) when compared with ETP but no difference in ICU LOS (4 days vs. 3 days, p = 0.12) and ventilator days. Extrathoracic plating patients more commonly received epidural anesthesia (56% vs. 24%, p < 0.001) and intercostal nerve block (56% vs. 29%, p = 0.01) compared with ITP. However, there was no difference in median morphine equivalents between cohorts. Operative time was shorter for ITP with ETP (279 minutes vs. 188 minutes, p < 0.001) after adjusting for numbers of ribs fixed. CONCLUSION: In this single-center study, patients who underwent ITP had a decreased LOS and operative time in comparison to ETP in patients with similar injury severity. Future prospective multicenter research is needed to confirm these findings and may lead to further adoption of this minimally invasive technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Surgical Infection Society: Chest Wall Injury Society Recommendations for Antibiotic Use during Surgical Stabilization of Traumatic Rib or Sternal Fractures to Reduce Risk of Implant Infection.

Background: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures is recommended in patients with flail chest or multiple displaced rib fractures with physiologic compromise. Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) and surgical stabilization of sternal fractures (SSSF) involve open reduction and internal fixation of fractures with a plate construct to restore anatomic alignment. Most plate constructs are composed of titanium and presence of this foreign, non-absorbable material presents opportunity for implant infection. Although implant infection rates after SSRF and SSSF are low, they present a challenging clinical entity often requiring prolonged antibiotic therapy, debridement, and potentially implant removal. Methods: The Surgical Infection Society's Therapeutics and Guidelines Committee and Chest Wall Injury Society's Publication Committee convened to develop recommendations for antibiotic use during and after surgical stabilization of traumatic rib and sternal fractures. Clinical scenarios included patients with concomitant infectious processes (sepsis, pneumonia, empyema, cellulitis) or sources of contamination (open chest, gross contamination) incurred as a result of their trauma and present at the time of their surgical stabilization. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for pertinent studies. Using a process of iterative consensus, all committee members voted to accept or reject each recommendation. Results: For patients undergoing SSRF or SSSF in the absence of pre-existing infectious process, there is insufficient evidence to suggest existing peri-operative guidelines or recommendations are inadequate. For patients undergoing SSRF or SSSF in the presence of sepsis, pneumonia, or an empyema, there is insufficient evidence to provide recommendations on duration and choice of antibiotic. This decision may be informed by existing guidelines for the concomitant infection. For patients undergoing SSRF or SSSF with an open or contaminated chest there is insufficient evidence to provide specific antibiotic recommendations. Conclusions: This guideline document summarizes the current Surgical Infection Society and Chest Wall Injury Society recommendations regarding antibiotic use during and after surgical stabilization of traumatic rib or sternal fractures. Limited evidence exists in the chest wall surgical stabilization literature and further studies should be performed to delineate risk of implant infection among patients undergoing SSSRF or SSSF with concomitant infectious processes.

Comparison of Same and Different Level Height Falls on Subsequent Midline Shift in Pediatric Traumatic Brain Injury.

OBJECTIVES: Up to 44% of pediatric traumatic brain injury occurs as a result of a fall. We hypothesized that a fall from height is associated with higher risk for subsequent midline shift in pediatric traumatic brain injury compared with a fall from same level. METHODS: The Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program 2016 was queried for kids younger than 16 years with an injury in the abbreviated injury scale for the head after a fall. Patients with midline shift were identified. A logistic regression model was used for analysis. RESULTS: The risk of a midline shift was lower in those with a fall from a height (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.91, P = 0.01). In kids older than 4 years, there was no association between the level of height of the fall and subsequent midline shift (P = 0.62). The risk for midline shift in kids younger than 4 years after a fall from same level was lower (odds ratio, 0.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.67; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In kids with traumatic brain injury, trauma activations due to falls from the same level are associated with a 2.5-fold higher risk of subsequent midline shift, compared with falling from height.

Blunt Trauma Mortality: Does Trauma Center Level Matter?

INTRODUCTION: Trauma centers have improved outcomes compared to nontrauma centers when caring for injured patients. A multicenter report found blunt trauma patients treated at American College of Surgeons' Level I trauma centers have improved survival compared to Level II centers. In a subsequent multicenter study, Level II centers had improved survival in all trauma patients. We sought to provide a more granular analysis by stratifying blunt mechanisms-to determine if there was a difference in mortality between Level I and Level II centers. METHODS: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for patients presenting to an American College of Surgeons' Level I or II trauma center after blunt trauma. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed controlling for comorbidities and Trauma and Injury Severity Score. RESULTS: From 734,473 patients with blunt trauma, 507,715 (69.1%) were treated at a Level I center and 226,758 (30.9%) at a Level II center. The Level I cohort was younger (median age, 53 versus 58, P = 0.01), with a higher median injury severity score (13 versus 10, P < 0.001) and with more patients presenting after a motor vehicle accident (MVA) (27.9% versus 22.4%, P < 0.001) and lower rates of falls (46.6% versus 54.5%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for covariates, there was no difference in mortality between Level I and Level II centers (P > 0.05). When stratifying by mechanisms, Level I centers had a decreased associated mortality for MVA (odds ratio = 0.94, CI: 0.88-0.99, P = 0.04) and bicycle accidents (odds ratio = 0.77, CI: 0.74-0.03, P = 0.01) but no difference in falls or pedestrians struck (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, blunt trauma patients presenting to a Level I center have no difference in mortality compared to a Level II center. However, when stratified by mechanism, those involved in MVA or bicycle accidents have a decreased associated risk of mortality. Future prospective studies examining variations in practice to account for these differences are warranted.

Different Surgeon, Different Duration: Lack of Consensus on the Appropriate Duration of Antimicrobial Prophylaxis and Therapy in Surgical Practice.

Background: The principles of antimicrobial stewardship promote the appropriate prescribing of agents with respect to efficacy, safety, duration, and cost. Antibiotic resistance often results from inappropriate use (e.g., indication, selection, duration). We evaluated practice variability in duration of antimicrobials in surgical infection treatment (Rx) or prophylaxis (Px). Hypothesis: There is lack of consensus regarding the duration of antibiotic Px and Rx for many common indications. Methods: A survey was distributed to the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) regarding the use of antimicrobial agents for a variety of scenarios. Standard descriptive statistics were used to compare survey responses. Heterogeneity among question responses were compared using the Shannon Index, expressed as natural units (nats). Results: Sixty-three SIS members responded, most of whom (67%) have held a leadership position within the SIS or contributed as an annual meeting moderator or discussant; 76% have been in practice for more than five years. Regarding peri-operative Px, more than 80% agreed that a single dose is adequate for most indications, with the exceptions of gangrenous cholecystitis (40% single dose, 38% pre-operative +24 hours) and inguinal hernia repair requiring a bowel resection (70% single dose). There was more variability regarding the use of antibiotic Px for various bedside procedures with respondents split between none needed (range, 27%-66%) versus a single dose (range, 31%-67%). Opinions regarding the duration of antimicrobial Rx for hospitalized patients who have undergone a source control operation or procedure varied widely based on indication. Only two of 20 indications achieved more than 60% consensus despite available class 1 evidence: seven days for ventilator-associated pneumonia (77%), and four plus one days for perforated appendicitis (62%). Conclusions: Except for peri-operative antibiotic Px, there is little consensus regarding antibiotic duration among surgical infection experts, despite class 1 evidence and several available guidelines. This highlights the need for further high-level research and better dissemination of guidelines.

Surgical rib fixation in traumatic rib fractures: is it warranted?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Traumatic chest wall injuries and rib fractures remain a prevalent injury. Despite many advances, these injuries result in high morbidity and mortality. Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is increasing in utilization with expanding indications. Recent studies have demonstrated that many patients may benefit from surgical intervention. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the past 20 years the indications and timing of SSRF has evolved. Once reserved mainly for the most extreme of injuries, expanding indications demonstrate that even minimally injured patients may benefit from intervention regarding pain control, respiratory complications, and overall mortality. SUMMARY: SSRF has become more prevalent with improving outcomes for patients. Understanding the indications will help expand utilization and improve patient outcomes.

Comparison of surgical fixation and non-operative management in patients with traumatic sternum fracture.

PURPOSE: The incidence of sternal fractures in blunt trauma patients lies between 3 and 7%. The role, timing and indications for surgical management are not well delineated and remain controversial for patients undergoing surgical stabilization of sternum fracture (SSSF). We sought to identify the national rate of SSSF in patients with a sternum fracture hypothesizing patients undergoing SSSF will have a decreased rate of mortality and complications. METHODS: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2015-2016) was queried for patients with sternum fracture. Propensity scores were calculated to match patients undergoing SSSF to patients managed non-operatively in a 1:2 ratio using demographic data. RESULTS: From 9460 patients with a sternum fracture, 114 (1.2%) underwent SSSF. After propensity-matching, 112 SSSF patients were compared to 224 patients undergoing non-operative management (NOM). There were no differences in matched characteristics (all p > 0.05). Compared to patients undergoing NOM, patients undergoing SSSF had an increased median length of stay (LOS) (16 vs. 7 days, p < 0.001), ICU LOS (9.5 vs. 5.5 days, p = 0.016) and ventilator days (8 vs. 5, p = 0.035). The SSSF group had a similar rate of ARDS (2.7% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.80), pneumonia (1.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.48) and unplanned intubation (8.9% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.29) but a lower mortality rate (2.7% vs. 11.2%, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Just over 1% of patients with sternum fracture underwent SSSF in a national analysis. Patients undergoing SSSF had an increased LOS and similar rate of all measured pulmonary complications, however a lower mortality rate compared to patients managed non-operatively.

Association of Risk of Mortality in Pediatric Patients Transferred From Scene by Helicopter With Major But Not Minor Injuries.

OBJECTIVES: Helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) are used for 16% of pediatric trauma. National HEMS guidelines advised that triage criteria be standardized for pediatric patients. A national report found pediatric HEMS associated with decreased mortality compared with ground emergency medical services (GEMS) but did not control for transport time. We hypothesized that the rate of HEMS has decreased nationally and the mortality risk for HEMS to be similar when adjusting for transport time compared with GEMS. METHODS: The Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2014-2016) was queried for patients younger than 16 years transported by HEMS or GEMS. A multivariable logistic regression was used. RESULTS: From 25,647 patients, 4527 (17.7%) underwent HEMS. The rate of HEMS from scene decreased from 21.2% in 2014 to 18.2% in 2016. The rate of HEMS for minor trauma (Injury Severity Score <15) decreased from 14.9% in 2014 to 13.5% in 2016 and major trauma (Injury Severity Score > 15) from 38.4% in 2014 to 35.9% in 2016. After controlling for predictors of mortality and transport time, HEMS was associated with decreased risk of mortality for only those with major injuries transferred from scene (odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.88; P = 0.01) compared with GEMS. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of HEMS in pediatric trauma has decreased. However, there is room for improvement as 14% of those with minor trauma are transported by HEMS. Given the similar risk of mortality compared with GEMS, further development of guidelines that avoid the unnecessary use of HEMS appears warranted. However, utilization of HEMS for transport of pediatric major trauma should continue.

Helmets Protect Pediatric Bicyclists From Head Injury and Do Not Increase Risk of Cervical Spine Injury.

OBJECTIVES: Only 21 states have mandatory helmet laws for pediatric bicyclists. This study sought to determine the incidence of helmeted riders among pediatric bicyclists involved in a collision and hypothesized the risk of a serious head and cervical spine injuries to be higher in nonhelmeted bicyclists (NHBs) compared with helmeted bicyclists (HBs). METHODS: The Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2014-2016) was queried for pediatric (age <16 years) bicyclists involved in a collision. Helmeted bicyclists were compared with NHBs. A serious injury was defined by an abbreviated injury scale grade of greater than 2. RESULTS: From 3693 bicyclists, 3039 (82.3%) were NHBs. Compared with HBs, NHBs were more often Black (21.6% vs 3.8%, P < 0.001), Hispanic (17.5% vs 9.3%, P < 0.001), without insurance (4.6% vs 2.4%, P = 0.012), and had a higher rate of a serious head injury (24.6% vs 9.3%, P < 0.001). Both groups had similar rates of complications and mortality (P > 0.05). The associated risk of a serious head (odds ratio = 3.17, P < 0.001) and spine injury (odds ratio = 0.41, P = 0.012) were higher and lower respectively in NHBs. Associated risks for cervical spine fracture or cord injury were similar (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric bicyclists involved in a collision infrequently wear helmets, and NHBs was associated with higher risks of serious head injury. However, the associated risk of serious spine injury among NHBs was lower. The associated risks for cervical spine fracture or cervical cord injuries were similar. Nonhelmeted bicyclists were more likely to lack insurance and to be Black or Hispanic. Targeted outreach programs may help decrease the risk of injury, especially in at-risk demographics.

Blunt Trauma Massive Transfusion (B-MaT) Score: A Novel Scoring Tool.

BACKGROUND: Multiple tools predicting massive transfusion (MT) in trauma have been developed but utilize variables that are not immediately available. Additionally, they only differentiate blunt from penetrating trauma and do not account for the large range of blunt mechanisms and their difference in force. We aimed to develop a Blunt trauma Massive Transfusion (B-MaT) score that accounts for high-risk blunt mechanisms and predicts MT needs in blunt trauma patients (BTPs) prior to arrival. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The adult 2017 Trauma Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify BTPs who were divided into 2 sets at random (derivation/validation). First, multiple logistic regression models were created to determine risk factors of MT (≥6 units of PRBCs within 4-hours or ≥10 units within 24-hours). Next, the weighted average and relative impact of each independent predictor was used to derive a B-MaT score. Finally, the area under the receiver-operating curve (AROC) was calculated. RESULTS: Of 172,423 patients in the derivation-set, 1,160 (0.7%) required MT. Heart rate ≥ 120bpm, systolic blood pressure ≤ 90mmHg, and high-risk blunt mechanisms were identified as independent predictors for MT. B-MaT scores were derived ranging from 0 -9, with scores of 6, 7, and 9 yielding a MT rate of 11.7%, 19.4%, and 32.4%, respectively. The AROC was 0.86. The validation-set had an AROC of 0.85. CONCLUSIONS: B-MaT is a novel scoring tool that predicts need for MT in BTPs and can be calculated prior to arrival. B-MaT warrants prospective validation to confirm its accuracy and assess its ability to improve patient outcomes and blood product allocation.