Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in trauma patients in youth.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) has received increasing attention for critically uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock. However, the efficacy of REBOA in patients in youth is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the mortality and characteristics of patients of age ≤18 years with severe traumatic injury who received REBOA. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed observational cohort data from the Japan Trauma Data Bank (JTDB) from 2004 to 2015. All patients ≤18 years old who underwent REBOA were included. Clinical characteristics and mortalities were analyzed and compared among patients ≤15 years old (young children) and 16-18 years old (adolescents). RESULTS: Of the 236,698 patients in the JTDB (2004-2015), 22,907 patients were 18 years old or younger. A total of 3,440 patients without survival data were excluded. Of the remaining 19,467, 54 (0.3%) patients underwent REBOA, among which 15 (27.8%) were young children. Both young children and adolescents who underwent REBOA were seriously injured (median Injury Severity Score [ISS], 41 and 38, respectively). Also, 53.3% of young children and 38.5% of adolescents survived to discharge after undergoing REBOA. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of young trauma patients from the JTDB who underwent REBOA to control hemorrhage, we found that both young children and adolescents who underwent REBOA were seriously injured and had an equivalent survival rate compared to the reported survival rate from studies in adults. REBOA treatment may be a reasonable option in severely injured young patients in the appropriate clinical settings. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

Effects of ethnicity on deceased organ donation in a minority-majority state.

OBJECTIVE: To define how ethnicity affects donation rates in New Mexico when compared with the United States. We hypothesized that deceased donation rates in New Mexico would reflect the ethnic rates of the population. DESIGN: We performed a retrospective review of the Organ Procurement Database for New Mexico from 2009 to June 2012. METHODS: Rates for donors and transplant candidates were calculated relative to 2010 census population estimates by ethnicity for non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics, and American Indians. Poisson regression analyses were used to test whether United States and New Mexico rates differed. Rates were scaled to 100,000 patient-years for reporting. SETTING: State of New Mexico population compared to United States population. SUBJECTS: Reported deaths to New Mexico Donor Services and United Network for Organ Sharing from 2009 to 2012. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Non-Hispanic White age-adjusted donor rates per 100,000 patient-years were 2.58 in New Mexico versus 2.60 in the United States, Hispanic donor rates were 1.98 in New Mexico versus 2.03 nationwide, and American Indian donor rates in New Mexico were 0.26 versus 1.23 nationwide (rate ratio = 0.21; 95% CI, 0.05-0.86). American Indians have significantly lower donor rates in New Mexico compared to non-Hispanic Whites (rate ratio = 0.11) and Hispanics (rate ratio = 0.13) and nationally (non-Hispanic Whites: rate ratio = 0.32 and Hispanics: rate ratio = 0.43). Hispanics and non-Hispanic Whites had similar donor rates regardless of geographic strata (Hispanics vs non-Hispanic Whites, New Mexico: 0.83; United States: 0.75). In New Mexico, Hispanic patients were 1.43 times more likely to be listed as transplant candidates than non-Hispanic Whites and American Indians were 3.32 times more likely to be listed than non-Hispanic Whites. In the United States, Hispanic patients were 1.90 times more likely to be listed as transplant candidates than non-Hispanic Whites and American Indians were 1.55 times more likely to be listed than non-Hispanic Whites. CONCLUSIONS: Donor and transplant candidate rates did not show strong differences by geographic strata. These findings suggest that further work is needed to elucidate the causes for ethnic differences in rates of consent and donation, particularly in the American Indian population.

Retrospective evaluation of anemia and transfusion in traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Despite clear evidence in critical care that blood transfusion has an adverse impact on outcome, neurosurgical textbooks still recommend transfusion of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) to a hematocrit (HCT) of 30%. There is little empirical evidence to support this practice. The current study addresses transfusion requirements in TBI in terms of neurologic outcome. METHODS: Retrospective record review of patients with severe TBI. Outcome measures were Glasgow Coma Scale score (GCS), Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS), and Ranchos Los Amigos Score (RLA) at hospital discharge (D/C); and GOS and Functional Independence Measures at follow-up. Association of outcomes with the number of days the HCT <30% and lowest measured HCT were evaluated. RESULTS: In all, 169 patients reviewed; 150 with D/C outcome data and 72 with long-term follow-up data. Univariate analysis showed that lowest measured HCT was associated with lower D/C GCS, D/C GOS, and RLA scores. Linear regression showed that more days with HCT <30% were associated with improved neurologic outcomes measured by GOS (R2 = 0.424, p < 0.001), GCS (R2 = 0.381, p < 0.001) and RLA (R2 = 0.392, p < 0.001) scores on D/C. Both transfusion and lowest measured HCT were significantly associated with all lower outcome scores on D/C. Additional factors with adverse impact on outcome were head Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), Injury Severity Score, hyperglycemia, and hypotension. Long-term outcomes were only significantly associated with head AIS. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe TBI should not have a different transfusion threshold than other critical care patients. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the effects of anemia in TBI.

What defines a distracting injury in cervical spine assessment?

BACKGROUND: The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study defined five criteria for obtaining cervical spine radiographic investigations in blunt trauma patients. Distracting injury was given as the indication for more than 30% of all x-ray studies ordered. The hypothesis of this study was that upper and lower torso injuries would have different effects on clinical cervical spine assessment. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, observational study of admitted, alert, adult blunt-trauma patients. All patients underwent cervical spine plain-film radiography. Data were collected on all injuries, physical examination findings, narcotic administration, and radiograph results. Patients with upper and lower torso injuries were compared in their ability complain of pain or midline tenderness relative to a cervical spine fracture. RESULTS: In all, 406 patients participated. All patients received narcotic analgesics before examination. Forty patients (9.9%) had cervical spine fractures, of whom seven had a nontender neck examination. All seven patients with a nontender cervical spine and a neck fracture had at least one upper torso injury. None of the 99 patients with injuries isolated to the lower torso and a nontender neck had a cervical spine fracture (p < 0.05). The frequency of cervical spine fracture among patients with cervical spine tenderness was 19.8% (n = 33). CONCLUSIONS: The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study definition of a distracting injury may be narrowed. Upper torso injuries may be sufficiently painful to distract from a reliable cervical spine examination. Patients may detect spine tenderness in the presence of isolated painful lower torso injuries. Patients with spine tenderness warrant imaging.

Trauma patient willingness to participate in alcohol screening and intervention.

BACKGROUND: Screening and brief interventions for alcohol disorders in the trauma setting are not routine. Perceived barriers to screening and treatment include the perception that patients find the topic offensive and the feasibility of screening all patients. The hypothesis of the study was that discussing alcohol use would be acceptable to patients independent of race or screening test score. Additional aims were to describe whether patients had access to alcohol screening via a primary care physician, to see what types of treatment patients thought appropriate, and to evaluate the feasibility of screening all trauma patients for alcohol disorders. METHODS: We surveyed 150 trauma inpatients regarding the offensiveness of discussing alcohol use and the appropriateness of different treatment options. We asked whether they had access to a primary care physician. As part of our routine screening program, we evaluated the proportion of patients we were able to screen with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, refusal rates, and whether any patients were not screened. Analysis of covariance and logistic regression were used to evaluate responses. RESULTS: A part-time research assistant approached 90% of 163 patients. Seventy percent were successfully screened, of which 45% screened positive for problematic alcohol use. Of the patients we were unable to screen, one third did not speak English and one half had injuries precluding interaction, leaving 16 patients (9.8%) that were "missed." One patient (<1%) refused screening. One hundred fifty consecutive patients participated in the survey. The ethnic distribution was 26% Native American, 40% Hispanic, 30% white, 2% African American, and 2% other. A brief counseling session was acceptable to all ethnic groups. There were ethnic differences in acceptability of other types of treatment. Ninety-four percent of patients thought that somebody from the trauma team should talk with patients about alcohol. Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score did not predict whether patients would be offended (p = 0.48). Forty-five percent had a primary care physician and only 10% had ever spoken to their physician about alcohol use. CONCLUSION: The majority of trauma patients are not offended by discussing alcohol use while hospitalized for injury and can feasibly be screened for alcohol disorders. Treatment types may need to be culturally tailored.