Injury-related emergency department visits and unplanned readmissions are associated with worse long-term mental and physical health.

BACKGROUND: The risk factors for unplanned emergency department (ED) visits and readmission after injury and the impact of these unplanned visits on long-term outcomes are not well understood. We aim to: 1) describe the incidence of and risk factors for injury-related ED visits and unplanned readmissions following injury and, 2) explore the relationship between these unplanned visits and mental and physical health outcomes 6-12 months post-injury. METHODS: Trauma patients with moderate-to-severe injury admitted to one of three Level-I trauma centers were asked to complete a phone survey to assess mental and physical health outcomes at 6-12 months. Patient reported data on injury-related ED visits and readmissions was collected. Multivariable regression analyses were performed controlling for sociodemographic and clinical variables to compare subgroups. RESULTS: Of 7,781 eligible patients, 4675 were contacted and 3,147 completed the survey and were included in the analysis. 194 (6.2%) reported an unplanned injury-related ED visit and 239 (7.6%) reported an injury-related readmission. Risk factors for injury-related ED visits included: younger age, Black race, a lower level of education, Medicaid insurance, baseline psychiatric or substance abuse disorder and penetrating mechanism. Risk factors for unplanned injury-related readmission included younger age, male sex, Medicaid insurance, substance abuse disorder, greater injury severity and penetrating mechanism of injury. Injury-related ED visits and readmissions were associated with significantly higher rates of PTSD, chronic pain and new injury-related functional limitations in addition to lower SF-12 mental and physical composite scores. CONCLUSIONS: Injury-related ED visits and unplanned readmissions are common after hospital discharge following treatment of moderate-severe injury and are associated with worse mental and physical health outcomes.

The Social Vulnerability Index and Long-term Outcomes After Traumatic Injury.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) as a predictor of long-term outcomes after injury. BACKGROUND: The SVI is a measure used in emergency preparedness to identify need for resources in the event of a disaster or hazardous event, ranking each census tract on 15 demographic/social factors. METHODS: Moderate-severely injured adult patients treated at 1 of 3 level-1 trauma centers were prospectively followed 6 to 14 months post-injury. These data were matched at the census tract level with overall SVI percentile rankings. Patients were stratified based on SVI quartiles, with the lowest quartile designated as low SVI, the middle 2 quartiles as average SVI, and the highest quartile as high SVI. Multivariable adjusted regression models were used to assess whether SVI was associated with long-term outcomes after injury. RESULTS: A total of 3153 patients were included [54% male, mean age 61.6 (SD = 21.6)]. The median overall SVI percentile rank was 35th (IQR: 16th-65th). compared to low SVI patients, high SVI patients were more likely to have new functional limitations [odds ratio (OR), 1.51; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-1.92), to not have returned to work (OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.40-2.89), and to screen positive for post-traumatic stress disorder (OR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.12-2.17). Similar results were obtained when comparing average with low SVI patients, with average SVI patients having significantly worse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The SVI has potential utility in predicting individuals at higher risk for adverse long-term outcomes after injury. This measure may be a useful needs assessment tool for clinicians and researchers in identifying communities that may benefit most from targeted prevention and intervention efforts.

Rhabdomyolysis in Severe COVID-19: Male Sex, High Body Mass Index, and Prone Positioning Confer High Risk.

BACKGROUND: Bedside experience and studies of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) indicate COVID-19 to be a devastating multisystem disease. We aim to describe the incidence, associated variables, and outcomes of rhabdomyolysis in critically ill COVID-19 patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data for all critically ill adult patients (≥18 years old) admitted to the ICU at a large academic medical center with confirmed COVID-19 between March 13, 2020 and April 18, 2020 were prospectively collected. Patients with serum creatine kinase (CK) concentrations greater than 1000 U/L were diagnosed with rhabdomyolysis. Patients were further stratified as having moderate (serum CK concentration 1000-4999 U/L) or severe (serum CK concentration ≥5000 U/L) rhabdomyolysis. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify outcomes and variables associated with the development of rhabdomyolysis. RESULTS: Of 235 critically ill COVID-19 patients, 114 (48.5%) met diagnostic criteria for rhabdomyolysis. Patients with rhabdomyolysis more often required mechanical ventilation (P < 0.001), prone positioning (P < 0.001), pharmacological paralysis (P < 0.001), renal replacement therapy (P = 0.010), and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) (P = 0.025). They also had longer median ICU length of stay (LOS) (P < 0.001) and hospital LOS (P < 0.001). No difference in mortality was observed. Male sex, patients with morbid obesity, SOFA score, and prone positioning were independently associated with rhabdomyolysis. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of critically ill COVID-19 patients in our cohort met diagnostic criteria for rhabdomyolysis. Male sex, morbid obesity, SOFA score, and prone position were independently associated with rhabdomyolysis.

Comparison of outcomes in non-head injured trauma patients using pre-injury warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patients on prehospital anticoagulation with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a vulnerable subset of the trauma population. While protocolized warfarin reversal is widely available and easily implemented, prehospital anticoagulation with DOAC is cost prohibitive with only a few reversal options. This study aims to compare hospital outcomes of non-head injured trauma patients taking pre-injury DOAC versus warfarin. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study at a level 1 trauma center was performed. All adult trauma patients with pre-injury anticoagulation admitted between January 2015 and December 2018, were stratified into DOAC-using and warfarin-using groups. Patients were excluded if they had traumatic brain injury (TBI). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Outcomes measures included in-hospital mortality, blood transfusion requirements, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS and discharge disposition. RESULTS: 374 non-TBI trauma patients on anticoagulation were identified, of which 134 were on DOACs and 240 on warfarin. Patients on DOACs had a higher ISS (9 [IQR, 9-10] vs. 9 [IQR, 5-9]; p<0.001), and lower admission INR values (1.2 [IQR, 1.1-1.3] vs 2.4 [IQR, 1.8-2.7]; p<0.001) than warfarin users. Use of reversal agents was higher in warfarin users (p<0.001). Relative to warfarin, DOAC users did not differ significantly with respect to hospital mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI [0.13-1.73]). Multivariable analysis (not possible for mortality) did not show significant difference for RBC transfusion requirements (OR 0.92 [0.51-1.67]), ICU LOS (OR 1.08 [0.53-2.19]), hospital LOS (OR 1.10 [0.70-1.74]) or discharge disposition (OR 0.56 [0.29-1.11]) between the groups. CONCLUSION: Despite lower reversal rates and higher ISS, non-TBI trauma patients with pre-injury DOAC use had similar outcomes as patients on pre-injury warfarin. There may be equipoise to have larger, prospective studies evaluating the comparative safety of DOACs and warfarin in the population prone to low energy fall type injuries.

Pre-peritoneal pelvic packing for early hemorrhage control reduces mortality compared to resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta in severe blunt pelvic trauma patients: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early hemorrhage control after severe blunt pelvic trauma is life-saving. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and outcomes of pre-peritoneal packing (PPP) and Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) with a subsequent hemorrhage control procedure to control life-threatening pelvic hemorrhage in trauma patients. METHODS: A 3-year (2015-2017) retrospective analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) was performed. All blunt trauma patients (aged ≥15 years) who underwent PPP or Zone 3 REBOA placement were included while deaths on arrival and transfers were excluded. Patients were matched on clinical characteristics using propensity score matching (PSM). Univariate analysis was performed to compare mortality, time to procedure, time in ED, transfusion requirements, complications rates, and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS) amongst patient groups. RESULTS: Of 420 trauma patients, 307 underwent PPP and 113 REBOA. Patients had similar hemodynamics and ISS upon presentation, but PPP patients had a higher GCS (P = 0.037) and more blunt kidney injuries (P = 0.015). After PSM, 206 trauma patients were included in the analysis. There were no significant differences in blood transfusion, LOS, or major complications. Time to REBOA was shorter than time to PPP (52 vs 77.5 min; P<0.001) with longer time in ED (65 vs 51 min; p = 0.023). The 24-hour (32.4 vs 17.7%; P = 0.23) and in-hospital mortality (52.0 vs 37.3%; P = 0.048) were higher after REBOA. CONCLUSION: PPP is associated with improved survival compared to REBOA placement. Delay in definitive hemorrhage control may provide a potential explanation, but causation remains unresolved. This data suggests that early PPP may offer a benefit over REBOA in the setting of hemorrhage after blunt pelvic trauma. Further, large, multi-institutional studies are warranted to support these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.