PROPOSED REVISION OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR SURGERY OF TRAUMA RENAL TRAUMA ORGAN INJURY SCALE: SECONDARY ANALYSIS OF THE MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL GENITOURINARY TRAUMA STUDY.

BACKGROUND: This study updates the American Association for Surgery of Trauma (AAST) Organ Injury Scale (OIS) for renal trauma using evidence-based criteria for bleeding control intervention. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multi-center retrospective study including patients with high grade renal trauma from 7 Level-1 trauma centers from 2013-2018. All eligible patients were assigned new renal trauma grades based on revised criteria. The primary outcome used to measure injury severity was intervention for renal bleeding. Secondary outcomes included intervention for urinary extravasation, units of packed red blood cells (PRBCs) transfused within 24 hours, and mortality. To test the revised grading system, we performed mixed effect logistic regression adjusted for multiple baseline demographic and trauma covariates. We determined the area under the receiver-operator curve (AUC) to assess accuracy of predicting bleeding interventions from the revised grading system and compared this to 2018 AAST organ injury scale. RESULTS: based on the 2018 OIS grading system, we included 549 patients with AAST Grade III-V injuries and CT scans (III: 52% (n = 284), IV: 45% (n = 249), and V: 3% (n = 16)). Among these patients, 89% experienced blunt injury (n = 491) and 12% (n = 64) underwent intervention for bleeding. After applying the revised grading criteria, 60% (n = 329) of patients were downgraded and 4% (n = 23) were upgraded; 2.8% (n = 7) downgraded from grade V to IV, and 69.5% (n = 173) downgraded from IV to III. The revised renal trauma grading system demonstrated improved predictive ability for bleeding interventions (2018 AUC = 0.805, revised AUC = 0.883; p = 0.001) and number of units of PRBCs transfused. When we removed urinary injury from the revised system, there was no difference in its predictive ability for renal hemorrhage intervention. CONCLUSIONS: A revised renal trauma grading system better delineates the need for hemostatic interventions than the current AAST OIS renal trauma grading system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Post-discharge venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized trauma patients: A retrospective comparison of patients receiving versus not receiving post-discharge prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in many trauma patients extends beyond hospitalization, but there is a paucity of evidence to guide the use of post-discharge prophylaxis (PDP). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of trauma patients deemed moderate-to-high risk for VTE (risk assessment profile score [RAP] ≥5) who were prescribed PDP based on an internal clinical guideline assessing injury pattern and mobility status. PDP patients were compared with those that did not receive post-discharge prophylaxis (NPDP). RESULTS: 1512 patients were included. PDP group had higher mean RAP score (7.3 vs. 6.4, p â€‹< â€‹0.001), more likely to have a complex orthopedic fracture and underwent a longer median hospital (4.7 vs. 2.9 days, p â€‹< â€‹0.001). No difference between groups in 90-day VTE (11 [1.5 â€‹%] (PDP) vs. 8 [1.0 â€‹%] (NPDP), p â€‹= â€‹0.50), clinically relevant bleeding (p â€‹= â€‹0.58), or readmission (p â€‹= â€‹0.46). CONCLUSIONS: VTE incidence, clinically relevant bleeding, and readmission 90-days after hospital discharge were low and similar between PDP and NPDP groups. PDP prescribed in a presumably higher VTE risk trauma population may mitigate the long-term risk of VTE.

Below the knee, let it be: Management of calf DVT in hospitalized trauma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Management of below-knee DVT (BKDVT) in trauma patients is uncertain. We hypothesized that BKDVT can be managed with observation only. METHODS: Secondary analysis on trauma inpatients March 2017-September 2019 with risk assessment profile ≥5. Management of BKDVT included observation with ultrasound. BKDVT was compared to above-knee DVT (AKDVT), and BKDVT with progression to AKDVT/PE compared to no progression. RESULTS: Of 1988 patients, 136 (6.8%) BKDVT and 23 (1.2%) AKDVT. 7 (6.9%) BKDVT progressed to AKDVT/PE. 6.9% had BKDVT progression, associated with higher ISS (36.7 vs 21.6, p â€‹= â€‹0.005), longer prophylaxis delay (121 vs 45 â€‹h, p â€‹= â€‹0.02) and longer hospital LOS (25.6 vs 7.8, p â€‹= â€‹0.01). None experienced post-thrombotic syndrome. CONCLUSION: Majority of BKDVT in hospitalized trauma patients did not progress to AKDVT. Observation for progression, rather than treatment, was not associated with increased PE risk or thrombotic sequelae. Observation with serial ultrasound may serve as a practical alternative to anticoagulation in trauma patients with BKDVT.

First steps toward a BIG change: A pilot study to implement the Brain Injury Guidelines across a 24-hospital system.

INTRODUCTION: The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) support a subset of low-risk patients to be managed without repeat head computed tomography (RHCT), neurosurgical consult (NSC), or hospital transfer/admission. This pilot aimed to assess mBIG implementation at a single facility to inform future systemwide implementation. METHODS: Single cohort pilot trial at a level I trauma center, December 2021-August 2022. Adult patients included if tICH meeting BIG 1 or 2 criteria. BIG 3 patients excluded. RESULTS: No patients required neurosurgical intervention. 72 RHCT and 83 NSC were prevented. 21 isolated BIG 1 were safely discharged home from the ED. No hospital readmissions for tICH. Protocol adherence rate was 92%. CONCLUSION: Implementation of the mBIG at a single trauma center is feasible and optimizes resource utilization. This pilot study will inform an implementation trial of the mBIG across a 24-hospital integrated health system.

Grade V renal trauma management: results from the multi-institutional genito-urinary trauma study.

PURPOSE: To investigate management trends for American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) grade V renal trauma with focus on non-operative management. METHODS: We used prospectively collected data as part of the Multi-institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study (MiGUTS). We included patients with grade V renal trauma according to the AAST Injury Scoring Scale 2018 update. All cases submitted by participating centers with radiology images available were independently reviewed to confirm renal trauma grade. Management was classified as expectant, conservative (minimally invasive, endoscopic or percutaneous procedures), or operative (renal-related surgery). RESULTS: Eighty patients were included, 25 of whom had complete imaging and had independent confirmation of AAST grade V renal trauma. Median age was 35 years (Interquartile range (IQR) 25-50) and 23 (92%) had blunt trauma. Ten patients (40%) were managed operatively with nephrectomy. Conservative management was used in nine patients (36%) of which six received angioembolization and three had a stent or drainage tube placed. Expectant management was followed in six (24%) patients. Transfusion requirements were progressively higher with groups requiring more aggressive treatment, and injury characteristics differed significantly across management groups in terms of hematoma size and laceration size. Vascular contrast extravasation was more likely in operatively managed patients though a statistically significant association was not found. CONCLUSION: Successful use of nonoperative management for grade V injuries is used for a substantial subset of patients. Lower transfusion requirement and less severe injury radiologic phenotype appear to be important characteristics delineating this group.

Shattered Kidney After Renal Trauma: Should It Be Classified As an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Grade V Injury?

OBJECTIVE: To study the prevalence and management of shattered kidney and to evaluate if the new description of "loss of identifiable renal anatomy" in the 2018 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) organ injury scale (OIS) would improve the ability to predict bleeding control interventions. METHODS: We used high-grade renal trauma data from 21 Level-1 trauma centers from 2013 to 2018. Initial CT scans were reviewed to identify shattered kidneys, defined as a kidney having ≥3 parenchymal fragments displaced by blood or fluid on cross-sectional imaging. We further categorized patients with shattered kidney in two models based on loss of identifiable renal parenchymal anatomy and presence or absence of vascular contrast extravasation (VCE). Bleeding interventions were compared between the groups. RESULTS: From 861 high-grade renal trauma patients, 41 (4.8%) had shattered kidney injury. 25 (61%) underwent a bleeding control intervention including 18 (43.9%) nephrectomies and 11 (26.8%) angioembolizations. 18 (41%) had shattered kidney with "loss of identifiable parenchymal renal anatomy" per 2018 AAST OIS (model-1). 28 (68.3%) had concurrent VCE (model-2). Model-2 had a statistically significant improvement in area under the curve over model-1 in predicting bleeding interventions (0.75 vs 0.72; P = .01). CONCLUSION: Shattered kidney is associated with high rates of active bleeding, urinary extravasation, and interventions including nephrectomy. The definition of shattered kidney is vague and subjective and our definition might be simpler and more reproducible. Loss of identifiable renal anatomy per the 2018 AAST OIS did not provide better distinction for bleeding control interventions over presence of VCE.

Clinically stable covid-19 patients presenting to acute unscheduled episodic care venues have increased risk of hospitalization: secondary analysis of a randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Assessment for risks associated with acute stable COVID-19 is important to optimize clinical trial enrollment and target patients for scarce therapeutics. To assess whether healthcare system engagement location is an independent predictor of outcomes we performed a secondary analysis of the ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention trial. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the ACTIV-4B trial that was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and August 2021. Participants were enrolled through acute unscheduled episodic care (AUEC) enrollment location (emergency department, or urgent care clinic visit) compared to minimal contact (MC) enrollment (electronic contact from test center lists of positive patients).We report the primary composite outcome of cardiopulmonary hospitalizations, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic arterial thromboembolism, or death among stable outpatients stratified by enrollment setting, AUEC versus MC. A propensity score for AUEC enrollment was created, and Cox proportional hazards regression with inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to compare the primary outcome by enrollment location. RESULTS: Among the 657 ACTIV-4B patients randomized, 533 (81.1%) with known enrollment setting data were included in this analysis, 227 from AUEC settings and 306 from MC settings. In a multivariate logistic regression model, time from COVID test, age, Black race, Hispanic ethnicity, and body mass index were associated with AUEC enrollment. Irrespective of trial treatment allocation, patients enrolled at an AUEC setting were 10-times more likely to suffer from the adjudicated primary outcome, 7.9% vs. 0.7%; p < 0.001, compared with patients enrolled at a MC setting. Upon Cox regression analysis adjustment patients enrolled at an AUEC setting remained at significant risk of the primary composite outcome, HR 3.40 (95% CI 1.46, 7.94). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with clinically stable COVID-19 presenting to an AUEC enrollment setting represent a population at increased risk of arterial and venous thrombosis complications, hospitalization for cardiopulmonary events, or death, when adjusted for other risk factors, compared with patients enrolled at a MC setting. Future outpatient therapeutic trials and clinical therapeutic delivery programs of clinically stable COVID-19 patients may focus on inclusion of higher-risk patient populations from AUEC engagement locations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.

Prehospital decompression of tension pneumothorax: Have we moved the needle?

BACKGROUND: Needle thoracostomy (NT) is the first-line intervention for tension pneumothorax in the prehospital setting. This study examined the effect of ATLS curriculum and EMS protocol changes on patient selection and successful performance of the procedure. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of all patients presenting to a Level One Trauma Center from 2015 to 2020 after undergoing prehospital NT. RESULTS: Lateral NT placement increased significantly from 5.1% to 38.9%. Proper patient selection, defined as presence decompensated shock, respiratory distress, and diminished breath sounds increased from 23.1% to 27.8%. There was no difference in radiographic confirmation of the catheter in the pleural space. Iatrogenic injury rates decreased slightly from 28.2% to 16.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Protocol and curriculum changes have fallen short in yielding improved NT success rates or patient selection. Continued development of EMS education on the performance of NT is indicated.

Less Is More: A Multimodal Pain Management Strategy Is Associated With Reduced Opioid Use in Hospitalized Trauma Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Adequate pain control is critical to the management and recovery of acutely injured patients. Opioids are associated with various adverse effects, and drug overdose is the leading cause of injury-related death in the United States. We hypothesized that a multimodal pain management protocol would reduce opioid use while still optimizing pain control. METHODS: The study included the preanalysis (August 2017-September 2018) and postanalysis (October 2018-August 2019) of a multimodal pain management strategy implemented in hospitalized adult patients admitted to the trauma service at a single American College of Surgeons-verified level-1 trauma center. Patients less than 18 y of age, pregnant patients, or imprisoned patients were excluded. The primary endpoint was opioid prescription on discharge (morphine milligram equivalent [MME]). The secondary endpoints included inpatient MMEs, nonopioid adjunct use, and pain scores. Subgroup analysis evaluating opioid use based on Injury Severity Score groups (mild, moderate, or severe) and by the Abbreviated Injury Scale body region was performed. RESULTS: There were 1755 patients in the PRE group and 1723 patients in the POST group. MMEs prescribed on discharge decreased from median 15 (interquartile range: 37.5) to 1.2 (interquartile range: 22.5) (P < 0.001). More patients in the POST group were discharged opioid-free (44% versus 37%, P < 0.001). There was a significant increase in the use of all nonopioid pain medications. Pain scores did not change. Subgroup analysis revealed a significant decrease in discharge MMEs in mild and moderate Injury Severity Score groups and in all injured body regions except the chest. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a multimodal pain management protocol in trauma patients targeting scheduled nonopioid medications and patient education is feasible and is associated with reduced opioid amount prescribed on discharge, without compromising pain control.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Nontraumatic Chest Wall Pain.

Chest pain is a common reason that patients may present for evaluation in both ambulatory and emergency department settings, and is often of musculoskeletal origin in the former. Chest wall syndrome collectively describes the various entities that can contribute to chest wall pain of musculoskeletal origin and may affect any chest wall structure. Various imaging modalities may be employed for the diagnosis of nontraumatic chest wall conditions, each with variable utility depending on the clinical scenario. We review the evidence for or against use of various imaging modalities for the diagnosis of nontraumatic chest wall pain. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Effect of Antithrombotic Therapy on Clinical Outcomes in Outpatients With Clinically Stable Symptomatic COVID-19: The ACTIV-4B Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Acutely ill inpatients with COVID-19 typically receive antithrombotic therapy, although the risks and benefits of this intervention among outpatients with COVID-19 have not been established. Objective: To assess whether anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy can safely reduce major adverse cardiopulmonary outcomes among symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACTIV-4B Outpatient Thrombosis Prevention Trial was designed as a minimal-contact, adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare anticoagulant and antiplatelet therapy among 7000 symptomatic but clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19. The trial was conducted at 52 US sites between September 2020 and June 2021; final follow-up was August 5, 2021. Prior to initiating treatment, participants were required to have platelet count greater than 100 000/mm3 and estimated glomerular filtration rate greater than 30 mL/min/1.73 m2. Interventions: Random allocation in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to aspirin (81 mg orally once daily; n = 164), prophylactic-dose apixaban (2.5 mg orally twice daily; n = 165), therapeutic-dose apixaban (5 mg orally twice daily; n = 164), or placebo (n = 164) for 45 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or hospitalization for cardiovascular or pulmonary cause. The primary analyses for efficacy and bleeding events were limited to participants who took at least 1 dose of trial medication. Results: On June 18, 2021, the trial data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination because of lower than anticipated event rates; at that time, 657 symptomatic outpatients with COVID-19 had been randomized (median age, 54 years [IQR, 46-59]; 59% women). The median times from diagnosis to randomization and from randomization to initiation of study treatment were 7 days and 3 days, respectively. Twenty-two randomized participants (3.3%) were hospitalized for COVID-19 prior to initiating treatment. Among the 558 patients who initiated treatment, the adjudicated primary composite end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the aspirin group, 1 patient (0.7%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, 2 patients (1.4%) in the 5-mg apixaban group, and 1 patient (0.7%) in the placebo group. The risk differences compared with placebo for the primary end point were 0.0% (95% CI not calculable) in the aspirin group, 0.7% (95% CI, -2.1% to 4.1%) in the 2.5-mg apixaban group, and 1.4% (95% CI, -1.5% to 5.0%) in the 5-mg apixaban group. Risk differences compared with placebo for bleeding events were 2.0% (95% CI, -2.7% to 6.8%), 4.5% (95% CI, -0.7% to 10.2%), and 6.9% (95% CI, 1.4% to 12.9%) among participants who initiated therapy in the aspirin, prophylactic apixaban, and therapeutic apixaban groups, respectively, although none were major. Findings inclusive of all randomized patients were similar. Conclusions and Relevance: Among symptomatic clinically stable outpatients with COVID-19, treatment with aspirin or apixaban compared with placebo did not reduce the rate of a composite clinical outcome. However, the study was terminated after enrollment of 9% of participants because of an event rate lower than anticipated. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04498273.

Readmission for pleural space complications after chest wall injury: Who is at risk?

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patient characteristics predicting postdischarge pleural space complications (PDPSCs) after thoracic trauma. We sought to analyze the patient population who required unplanned hospital readmission for PDPSC. METHODS: Retrospective review of adult patients admitted to a Level I Trauma Center with a chest Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of 2 or greater between January 2015 and August 2020. Those readmitted within 30 days of index hospitalization discharge for PDPSC were compared with those not readmitted. Demographics, injury characteristics, surgical procedures, imaging, and readmission data were retrieved. RESULTS: Out of 17,192 trauma evaluations, 3,412 (19.8%) suffered a chest AIS score of 2 or greater injury and 155 experienced an unplanned 30-day hospital readmission. Of those, 49 (1.4%) were readmitted for the management of PDPSC (readmit PDPSC) and were compared with patients who were not readmitted (no readmit, n = 3,257). The readmit PDPSC group was significantly older age, heavier, comprised of fewer men, and suffered a higher mean chest AIS score. The readmit PDPSC group had a significantly higher incidence of rib fractures, flail chest, pneumothorax, hemothorax, scapula fractures, and a higher rate of tube thoracostomy placement during index admission. The discharge chest X-ray in the readmit PDPSC group demonstrated a pleural space abnormality in 36 (73%) of patients. Mean time to readmission was 10.2 (7.2) days, and hospital length of stay on readmission was 5.8 (3.7) days. Pleural effusion was the most common readmission diagnosis (44 [90%]), and 42 (86%) required tube thoracostomy. CONCLUSION: We describe the subset of chest wall injury patients who require hospital readmission for PDPSC. Characteristics from index hospitalization associated with PDPSC include older age, female sex, heavier weight, presence of rib fractures, pleural space abnormality, scapular fracture, and chest tube placement. Further studies are needed to characterize this at-risk chest wall injury population, and to determine what interventions can facilitate outpatient management of postdischarge pleural space complications and mitigate readmission risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiologic, Level IV; Care management, Level V.

Nephrectomy After High-Grade Renal Trauma is Associated With Higher Mortality: Results From the Multi-Institutional Genitourinary Trauma Study (MiGUTS).

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that undergoing nephrectomy after high-grade renal trauma is associated with higher mortality rates. METHODS: We gathered data from 21 Level-1 trauma centers through the Multi-institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study. Patients with high-grade renal trauma were included. We assessed the association between nephrectomy and mortality in all patients and in subgroups of patients after excluding those who died within 24 hours of hospital arrival and those with GCS≤8. We controlled for age, injury severity score (ISS), shock (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg), and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS). RESULTS: A total of 1181 high-grade renal trauma patients were included. Median age was 31 and trauma mechanism was blunt in 78%. Injuries were graded as III, IV, and V in 55%, 34%, and 11%, respectively. There were 96 (8%) mortalities and 129 (11%) nephrectomies. Mortality was higher in the nephrectomy group (21.7% vs 6.5%, P <.001). Those who died were older, had higher ISS, lower GCS, and higher rates of shock. After adjusting for patient and injury characteristics nephrectomy was still associated with higher risk of death (RR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.26-2.55). CONCLUSION: Nephrectomy was associated with higher mortality in the acute trauma setting even when controlling for shock, overall injury severity, and head injury. These results may have implications in decision making in acute trauma management for patients not in extremis from renal hemorrhage.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures in octogenarians and beyond-what are the outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Prospective studies of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) have excluded elderly patients, and no study has exclusively addressed the ≥80-year-old subgroup. We hypothesized that SSRF is associated with decreased mortality in trauma patients 80 years or older. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study involving eight centers. Patients who underwent SSRF from 2015 to 2020 were matched to controls by study center, age, injury severity score, and presence of intracranial hemorrhage. Patients with chest Abbreviated Injury Scale score less than 3, head Abbreviated Injury Scale score greater than 2, death within 24 hours, and desire for no escalation of care were excluded. A subgroup analysis compared early (0-2 days postinjury) to late (3-7 days postinjury) SSRF. Poisson regression accounting for clustered data by center calculated the relative risk (RR) of the primary outcome of mortality for SSRF versus nonoperative management. RESULTS: Of 360 patients, 133 (36.9%) underwent SSRF. Compared with nonoperative patients, SSRF patients were more severely injured and more likely to receive locoregional analgesia. There were 31 hospital deaths among the entire sample (8.6%). Multivariable regression demonstrated a decreased risk of mortality for the SSRF group, as compared with the nonoperative group (RR, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.69; p < 0.01). However, SSRF patients were more likely to develop pneumonia, and had an increased duration of both mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay. There were no differences in discharge destination, although the SSRF group was less likely to be discharged on narcotics (RR, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.90; p = 0.01). There was no difference in adjusted mortality between the early and late SSRF subgroups. CONCLUSION: Patients selected for SSRF were substantially more injured versus those managed nonoperatively. Despite this, SSRF was independently associated with decreased mortality. With careful patient selection, SSRF may be considered a viable treatment option in octogenarian/nonagenarians. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, Level IV.

Trauma patients at risk for venous thromboembolism who undergo routine duplex ultrasound screening experience fewer pulmonary emboli: A prospective randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Although guidelines are established for the prevention and management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in trauma, no consensus exists regarding protocols for the diagnostic approach. We hypothesized that at-risk trauma patients who undergo duplex ultrasound (DUS) surveillance for lower extremity deep venous thrombosis (DVT) will have a lower rate of symptomatic or fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) than those who do not undergo routine surveillance. METHODS: Prospective, randomized trial between March 2017 and September 2019 of trauma patients admitted to a single, level 1 trauma center, with a risk assessment profile score of ≥5. Patients were randomized to receive either bilateral lower extremity DUS surveillance on days 1, 3, and 7 and weekly during hospitalization ultrasound group (US) or no surveillance no ultrasound group (NoUS). Rates of in-hospital and 90-day DVT and PE were reported as was DVT propagation and all-cause mortality. Standard care for the prevention and management of VTE per established institutional protocols was provided to all patients. RESULTS: A total of 3,236 trauma service admissions were screened, and 1,989 moderate- and high-risk patients were randomized (US, 995; NoUS, 994). The mean ± SD age was 62 ± 20.1 years, Injury Severity Score was 14 ± 9.7, risk assessment profile was 7.1 ± 2.4, and 97% suffered blunt trauma. There was no difference in demographics or VTE risk factors between the groups. There were significantly fewer in-hospital PE in the US group than the NoUS group (1 [0.1%] vs. 9 [0.9%], p = 0.01). The US group experienced more in-hospital below-knee DVTs (124 [12.5%] vs. 8 [0.8%], p < 0.001) and above-knee DVTs (19 [1.9%] vs. 8 [0.8%], p = 0.05). There was no difference in 90-day PE or DVT, or overall mortality. CONCLUSION: The implementation of a selective routine DUS protocol was associated with significantly fewer in-hospital PE. More DVTs were identified with routine screening; however, surveillance bias appears to exist primarily with distal DVT. Larger trials are needed to further characterize the relationship between routine DUS screening and VTE outcomes in the high-risk trauma population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level II.

Characterization and influence of ipsilateral scapula fractures among patients who undergo surgical stabilization of sub-scapular rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: Current decision algorithms involving surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) do not consider either specific fracture locations or other chest wall bony injuries. Our objective was to characterize the impact of scapula fractures on morbidity among patients who underwent fixation of sub-scapular rib fractures. We hypothesized that an ipsilateral scapula fracture was associated with poor acute and long-term outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective review of two institutions' prospectively maintained SSRF databases (October 2010 to January 2019). Patients who underwent repair of ≥ 1 sub-scapular rib fracture were included. Patients were grouped by the presence of an ipsilateral scapula fracture. Outcomes were acute SSRF complications, long-term rib implant removal, and quality of life via phone survey. RESULTS: A total of 144 patients were analyzed; 53 (36.8%) had an ipsilateral scapula fracture. Patients with a scapula fracture had a higher injury severity score (p = 0.02), degree of pulmonary contusion (p < 0.01), and RibScore (p < 0.01). The overall incidence of both acute re-operation (n = 4, 2.8%) and long-term implant removal (n = 5, 3.8%) following SSRF was low and did not vary by the presence of a scapula fracture. Only twenty-one patients completed phone questionnaires a median of 38 months after SSRF; both shoulder and rib outcomes were excellent and did not vary by the presence of a scapula fracture. CONCLUSION: Ipsilateral scapula fractures are common in patients who undergo surgical stabilization of sub-scapular rib fractures. Despite higher injury severity, patients with an ipsilateral scapula fracture did not incur worse outcomes.

Clinical and Radiographic Factors Associated With Failed Renal Angioembolization: Results From the Multi-institutional Genitourinary Trauma Study (Mi-GUTS).

OBJECTIVE: To find clinical or radiographic factors that are associated with angioembolization failure after high-grade renal trauma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients were selected from the Multi-institutional Genito-Urinary Trauma Study. Included were patients who initially received renal angioembolization after high-grade renal trauma (AAST grades III-V). This cohort was dichotomized into successful or failed angioembolization. Angioembolization was considered a failure if angioembolization was followed by repeat angiography and/or an exploratory laparotomy. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients underwent management initially with angioembolization, with failure in 18 (27%) patients. Those with failed angioembolization had a larger proportion ofgrade IV (72% vs 53%) and grade V (22% vs 12%) renal injuries. A total of 53 patients underwent renal angioembolization and had initial radiographic data for review, with failure in 13 cases. The failed renal angioembolization group had larger perirenal hematoma sizes on the initial trauma scan. CONCLUSION: Angioembolization after high-grade renal trauma failed in 27% of patients. Failed angioembolization was associated with higher injury grade and a larger perirenal hematoma. Likely these characteristics are associated with high-grade renal trauma that may be less amenable to successful treatment after a single renal angioembolization.

Comparative evaluation of the clinical laboratory-based Intermountain risk score with the Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices for mortality prediction.

BACKGROUND: The Charlson and Elixhauser comorbidity indices are mortality predictors often used in clinical, administrative, and research applications. The Intermountain Mortality Risk Scores (IMRS) are validated mortality predictors that use all factors from the complete blood count and basic metabolic profile. How IMRS, Charlson, and Elixhauser relate to each other is unknown. METHODS: All inpatient admissions except obstetric patients at Intermountain Healthcare's 21 adult care hospitals from 2010-2014 (N = 197,680) were examined in a observational cohort study. The most recent admission was a patient's index encounter. Follow-up to 2018 used hospital death records, Utah death certificates, and the Social Security death master file. Three Charlson versions, 8 Elixhauser versions, and 3 IMRS formulations were evaluated in Cox regression and the one of each that was most predictive was used in dual risk score mortality analyses (in-hospital, 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality). RESULTS: Indices with the strongest mortality associations and selected for dual score study were the age-adjusted Charlson, the van Walraven version of the acute Elixhauser, and the 1-year IMRS. For in-hospital mortality, Charlson (c = 0.719; HR = 4.75, 95% CI = 4.45, 5.07), Elixhauser (c = 0.783; HR = 5.79, CI = 5.41, 6.19), and IMRS (c = 0.821; HR = 17.95, CI = 15.90, 20.26) were significant predictors (p<0.001) in univariate analyses. Dual score analysis of Charlson (HR = 1.79, CI = 1.66, 1.92) with IMRS (HR = 13.10, CI = 11.53, 14.87) and of Elixhauser (HR = 3.00, CI = 2.80, 3.21) with IMRS (HR = 11.42, CI = 10.09, 12.92) found significance for both scores in each model. Results were similar for 30-day, 1-year, and 5-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: IMRS provided the strongest ability to predict mortality, adding to and attenuating the predictive ability of the Charlson and Elixhauser indices whose mortality associations remained statistically significant. IMRS uses common, standardized, objective laboratory data and should be further evaluated for integration into mortality risk evaluations.