Improper Restraint Use in Fatal Pediatric Motor Vehicle Collisions.

PURPOSE: Motor vehicle collisions (MVC) are the second leading cause of death in children and adolescents, but appropriate restraint use remains inadequate. Our previous work shows that about half of pediatric MVC victims presenting to our trauma center were unrestrained. This study evaluates restraint use among children and adolescents who did not survive after MVC. We hypothesize that restraint use is even lower in this population than in pediatric MVC patients who reached our trauma center. METHODS: We reviewed the local Medical Examiner's public records for fatal MVCs involving decedents <19 years old from 2010 to 2021. When restraint use was not documented, local Fire Rescue public records were cross-referenced. Patients were excluded if restraint use was still unknown. Age, demographics, and restraint use were compared using standard statistical methods. RESULTS: Of 199 reviewed cases, 92 met selection criteria. Improper restraint use was documented in 72 patients (78%). Most decedents were White (72% versus 28% Black) and male (74%), with a median age of 17 years [15-18]. Improper restraint use was more common among Black (92% vs 73% White, p = 0.040) and male occupants (85% vs 58% female, p = 0.006). Improper restraint use was lower in the Hispanic population (73%) compared to non-Hispanic individuals (89%), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.090). CONCLUSION: Most pediatric patients who die from MVCs in our county are improperly restrained. While male and Black patients are especially high-risk, the overall dismal rates of restraint use in our pediatric population present an opportunity to improve injury prevention measures. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective Comparative Study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Outcomes of elective peripheral endovascular interventions for peripheral arterial disease performed in hospital outpatient departments, ambulatory surgical centers and office-based labs.

BACKGROUND: A recent shift in the location where peripheral endovascular interventions (PVI) are performed has occurred, from traditional settings such as hospital outpatient departments (HOPD), to ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) and outpatient-based laboratories (OBL). Different settings may influence the safety and efficacy of the PVI, as well as how it is done. This study aims to compare the postprocedural outcomes and intraprocedural details between the three settings. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative database was queried for all elective infrainguinal PVIs for occlusive peripheral arterial disease between January 2016 and December 2021. The primary outcomes were rates of postprocedural hospital admissions, postprocedural medical complications, and access site complications. Secondary outcomes included technical success and intraprocedural details, such as types and number of devices used, amount of contrast, and fluoroscopy time. The χ2 test, analysis of variance, and multivariate logistic regression were used to analyze the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 66,101 PVI cases (HOPD, 57,062 [83.33%]; ASC, 4591 [6.95%]; OBL, 4448 [6.73%]) were included in the study. There were 445 cases requiring hospital admission (HOPD, 398 [0.70%]; ASC, 26 [0.57%]; OBL, 21 [0.47%]; P = .126). There were no significant differences in cardiac, pulmonary, or renal complications. Access site complications occurred in less than 1.7% of all cases and were significantly higher in OBLs when compared with ASCs (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 3.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.70-8.03; P = .001) and significantly lower in ASCs in comparison to HOPDs (aOR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18-0.41; P < .001). Technical success occurred in at least 92% of all cases, regardless of setting. There was a 16-fold increase in the use of atherectomy devices in an OBL vs HOPD setting (aOR, 16.79; 95% CI, 11.77-23.95; P < .001) and a five-fold increase in the use of atherectomy devices in an ASC vs HOPD setting (aOR, 5.37; 95% CI, 2.47-11.65; P < .001). There was a five-fold decrease in the use of special balloons in an OBL vs HOPD setting (aOR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.10-0.39; P < .001) and a four-fold decrease when comparing ASCs with HOPDs (aOR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.51; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Elective PVIs performed in any outpatient setting proved to be safe and technically successful. However, there are significant differences in the way PVIs are performed in each setting, such as the greater use of atherectomy devices in OBLs and greater use of special balloons in HOPDs. Long-term studies are needed to evaluate the durability and reintervention outcomes and understand factors associated with practice pattern variability across these different settings.

Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms Among COVID-19 Survivors After Hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: Limited data are available on posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) among COVID-19 survivors. This study aimed to contribute to this knowledge base. METHODS: PTSS among COVID-19 survivors who had been hospitalized were investigated. Patients were identified as COVID-19 positive at hospital admission. COVID-19 survivors were surveyed with the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL-5) between March and October 2020 at 5- and 12-month postdischarge follow-up points. RESULTS: Of 411 patients, 331 (81%) survived to hospital discharge. Of these survivors, 83 (25%) completed the PCL-5 at the 5-month follow-up. Of those patients, 12 (14%) screened positive for PTSS. At the 12-month follow-up, four of eight patients remained PTSS positive. Mean age of follow-up participants was 62±15 years; 47% were women, 65% were White, and 63% were Hispanic. PTSS-positive patients were predominantly non-White (67% vs. 30%, p=0.02), and although the differences were not statistically significant, these patients tended to be younger (56 vs. 63 years, p=0.08) and have shorter intensive care unit stays (2.0 vs. 12.5 days, p=0.06). PTSS-positive and PTSS-negative groups did not differ significantly in prehospitalization neurological diagnoses (11% vs. 8%), psychiatric diagnoses (17% vs. 21%), and intensive care admission status (25% vs. 25%). More patients in the PTSS-positive group had returned to the emergency department (50% vs. 14%, p<0.01) and reported fatigue at follow-up (100% vs. 42%, p<0.001). In the multivariate logistic regression model, non-White race (OR=11, 95% CI=2-91) and returning to the emergency department (OR=19, 95% CI=3-252) were associated with PTSS-positive status. CONCLUSION: PTSS were twice as common among hospitalized COVID-19 survivors than among those in the general population.