Crystalloid resuscitation is associated with decreased treatment delays and improved systolic blood pressures in a blood-constrained setting.

Objectives: We analyzed resuscitation practices in Cameroonian patients with trauma as a first step toward developing a context-appropriate resuscitation protocol. We hypothesized that more patients would receive crystalloid-based (CB) resuscitation with a faster time to administration than blood product (BL) resuscitation. Methods: We included patients enrolled between 2017 and 2019 in the Cameroon Trauma Registry (CTR). Patients presenting with hemorrhagic shock (systolic blood pressure (SBP) <100 mm Hg and active bleeding) were categorized as receiving CB, BL, or no resuscitation (NR). We evaluated differences between cohorts with the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. We compared time to treatment with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Results: Of 9635 patients, 403 (4%) presented with hemorrhagic shock. Of these, 278 (69%) patients received CB, 39 (10%) received BL, and 86 (21%) received NR. BL patients presented with greater injury severity (Highest Estimated Abbreviated Injury Scale (HEAIS) 4 BL vs 3 CB vs 1 NR, p<0.001), and lower median hemoglobin (8.0 g/dL BL, 11.4 g/dL CB, 10.6 g/dL NR, p<0.001). CB showed greater initial improvement in SBP (12 mm Hg CB vs 9 mm Hg BL vs 0 NR mm Hg, p=0.04) compared with BL or no resuscitation, respectively. Median time to treatment was lower for CB than BL (12 vs 131 min, p<0.01). Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for injury severity found no association between resuscitation type and mortality (CB adjusted OR (aOR) 1.28, p=0.82; BL aOR 1.05, p=0.97). Conclusions: CB was associated with faster treatment, greater SBP elevation, and similar survival compared with BL in Cameroonian patients with trauma with hemorrhagic shock. In blood-constrained settings, treatment delays associated with blood product transfusion may offset the physiologic benefits of an early BL strategy. CB prior to definitive hemorrhage control in this resource-limited setting may be a necessary strategy to optimize perfusion pressure. Level of evidence and study type: III, retrospective study.

Back to the basics: Clinical assessment yields robust mortality prediction and increased feasibility in low resource settings.

INTRODUCTION: Mortality prediction aids clinical decision-making and is necessary for trauma quality improvement initiatives. Conventional injury severity scores are often not feasible in low-resource settings. We hypothesize that clinician assessment will be more feasible and have comparable discrimination of mortality compared to conventional scores in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Between 2017 and 2019, injury data were collected from all injured patients as part of a prospective, four-hospital trauma registry in Cameroon. Clinicians used physical exam at presentation to assign a highest estimated abbreviated injury scale (HEAIS) for each patient. Discrimination of hospital mortality was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic curves. Discrimination of HEAIS was compared with conventional scores. Data missingness for each score was reported. RESULTS: Of 9,635 presenting with injuries, there were 206 in-hospital deaths (2.2%). Compared to 97.5% of patients with HEAIS scores, only 33.2% had sufficient data to calculate a Revised Trauma Score (RTS) and 24.8% had data to calculate a Kampala Trauma Score (KTS). Data from 2,328 patients with all scores was used to compare models. Although statistically inferior to the prediction generated by RTS (AUC 0.92-0.98) and KTS (AUC 0.93-0.99), HEAIS provided excellent overall discrimination of mortality (AUC 0.84-0.92). Among 9,269 patients with HEAIS scores was strongly predictive of mortality (AUC 0.93-0.96). CONCLUSION: Clinical assessment of injury severity using HEAIS strongly predicts hospital mortality and far exceeds conventional scores in feasibility. In contexts where traditional scoring systems are not feasible, utilization of HEAIS could facilitate improved data quality and expand access to quality improvement programming.

Mechanical and Oral Antibiotic Bowel Preparation in the Era of Minimally Invasive Surgery and Enhanced Recovery.

INTRODUCTION: In the modern era of minimally invasive colorectal surgery and enhanced recovery pathways, the value of preoperative bowel preparation remains debated. In this review, we evaluate evidence regarding the use of mechanical bowel preparation (MBP) and oral antibiotic bowel preparation to make recommendations for their application in contemporary practice. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database through December 2017 for relevant randomized controlled trials, Cochrane Reviews, American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database studies, and other reviews pertaining to MBP and oral antibiotic bowel preparation in elective colorectal surgery and conducted a narrative review. RESULTS: The combination of MBP and oral antibiotics reduces the incidence of surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, and postoperative sepsis. MBP improves laparoscopic surgical viewing and facilitates intraoperative manipulation of the bowel in minimally invasive surgery. CONCLUSION: Based on existing data, we recommend that preoperative care includes MBP and oral antibiotics in elective minimally invasive colorectal surgery.

Enhanced Recovery Pathways for Minimally Invasive Esophageal Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The outcomes for enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) have yet to be thoroughly studied in minimally invasive esophageal surgery. In this review, we examine the literature to provide an overview of the current state of ERAS in minimally invasive esophageal surgery. METHODS: We searched the PubMed database up to January 2018 for relevant literature. We reviewed two randomized controlled trials, one Cochrane Review, two meta-analyses, three systematic reviews, three prospective cohort studies, three retrospective case-control studies, one consecutive series, and several other studies pertaining to ERAS in minimally invasive esophageal surgery. RESULTS: Compared with conventional perioperative care, ERAS pathways after minimally invasive esophageal procedures reduce postoperative hospital length of stay, encourage earlier return of bowel function, increase cost savings, and do not significantly change perioperative complication rates. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that patients undergoing minimally invasive esophageal surgery enter a postoperative ERAS pathway to maximize recovery. ERAS pathways offer the best opportunity for successful postoperative recovery without negatively impacting patient safety.