Trauma systems in high socioeconomic index countries in 2050.

Considerable political, structural, environmental and epidemiological change will affect high socioeconomic index (SDI) countries over the next 25 years. These changes will impact healthcare provision and consequently trauma systems. This review attempts to anticipate the potential impact on trauma systems and how they could adapt to meet the changing priorities. The first section describes possible epidemiological trajectories. A second section exposes existing governance and funding challenges, how these can be met, and the need to incorporate data and information science into a learning and adaptive trauma system. The last section suggests an international harmonization of trauma education to improve care standards, optimize immediate and long-term patient needs and enhance disaster preparedness and crisis resilience. By demonstrating their capacity for adaptation, trauma systems can play a leading role in the transformation of care systems to tackle future health challenges.

Prediction of neurocritical care intensity through automated infrared pupillometry and transcranial doppler in blunt traumatic brain injury: the NOPE study.

PURPOSE: This pilot study aimed to determine the capacity of automated infrared pupillometry (AIP) alone and in combination with transcranial doppler (TCD) on admission to rule out need for intense neuroAQ2 critical care (INCC) in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: In this observational pilot study clinicians performed AIP and TCD measurements on admission in blunt TBI patients with a Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) < 9 and/or motor score < 6. A Neurological Pupil index (NPi) < 3, Pulsatility Index (PI) > 1,4 or diastolic blood flow velocity (dV) of < 20 cm/s were used to rule out the need for INCC (exceeding the tier 0 Seattle Consensus Conference). The primary outcome was the negative likelihood ratio (nLR) of NPi < 3 alone or in combination with TCD to detect need for INCC. RESULTS: A total of 69 TBI patients were included from May 2019 to September 2020. Of those, 52/69 (75%) median age was 45 [28-67], median prehospital GCS of 7 [5-8], median Injury Severity Scale of 13.0 [6.5-25.5], median Marshall Score of 4 [3-5], the median Glasgow Outcome Scale at discharge was 3 [1-5]. NPi < 3 was an independent predictor of INCC. NPi demonstrated a nLR of 0,6 (95%CI 0.4-0.9; AUROC, 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.79), a combination of NPi and TCD showed a nLR of 0.6 (95% CI 0.4-1.0; AUROC 0.67 95% CI 0.52-0.83) to predict INCC. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests a possible useful contribution of NPi to determine the need for INCC in severe blunt TBI patients on admission.

Mastering the brain in critical conditions: an update.

Acute brain injuries, such as traumatic brain injury and ischemic and hemorragic stroke, are a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. While characterized by clearly distict primary events-vascular damage in strokes and biomechanical damage in traumatic brain injuries-they share common secondary injury mechanisms influencing long-term outcomes. Growing evidence suggests that a more personalized approach to optimize energy substrate delivery to the injured brain and prognosticate towards families could be beneficial. In this context, continuous invasive and/or non-invasive neuromonitoring, together with clinical evaluation and neuroimaging to support strategies that optimize cerebral blood flow and metabolic delivery, as well as approaches to neuroprognostication are gaining interest. Recently, the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine organized a 2-day course focused on a practical case-based clinical approach of acute brain-injured patients in different scenarios and on future perspectives to advance the management of this population. The aim of this manuscript is to update clinicians dealing with acute brain injured patients in the intensive care unit, describing current knowledge and clinical practice based on the insights presented during this course.

Guidelines for the acute care of severe limb trauma patients

To provide healthcare professionals with comprehensive multidisciplinary expert recommendations for the acute care of severe limb trauma patients, both during the prehospital phase and after admission to a Trauma Centre. A consensus committee of 21 experts was formed. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently of any industrial funding (i.e., pharmaceutical, medical devices). The authors were advised to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of the quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised. Few recommendations remained non-graded. The committee addressed eleven questions relevant to the patient suffering severe limb trauma: 1) What are the key findings derived from medical history and clinical examination which lead to the patient's prompt referral to a Level 1 or Level 2 Trauma Centre? 2) What are the medical devices that must be implemented in the prehospital setting to reduce blood loss? 3) Which are the clinical findings prompting the performance of injected X-ray examinations? 4) What are the ideal timing and modalities for performing fracture fixation? 5) What are the clinical and operative findings which steer the surgical approach in case of vascular compromise and/or major musculoskeletal attrition? 6) How to best prevent infection? 7) How to best prevent thromboembolic complications? 8) What is the best strategy to precociously detect and treat limb compartment syndrome? 9) How to best and precociously detect post-traumatic rhabdomyolysis and prevent rhabdomyolysis-induced acute kidney injury? 10) What is the best strategy to reduce the incidence of fat emboli syndrome and post-traumatic systemic inflammatory response? 11) What is the best therapeutic strategy to treat acute trauma-induced pain? Every question was formulated in a PICO (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome) format and the evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology. The experts' synthesis work and the application of the GRADE method resulted in 19 recommendations. Among the formalised recommendations, 4 had a high level of evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 12 had a low level of evidence (GRADE 2+/-). For 3 recommendations, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in an expert advice. After two rounds of scoring and one amendment, strong agreement was reached on all the recommendations. There was significant agreement among experts on strong recommendations to improve practices for severe limb trauma patients.

Early management of severe abdominal trauma

To develop French guidelines on the management of patients with severe abdominal trauma. A consensus committee of 20 experts from the French Society of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine (Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation, SFAR), the French Society of Emergency Medicine (Société française de médecine d'urgence, SFMU), the French Society of Urology (Société française d'urologie, SFU) and from the French Association of Surgery (Association française de chirurgie, AFC), the Val-de-Grâce School (École du Val-De-Grâce, EVG) and the Federation for Interventional Radiology (Fédération de radiologie interventionnelle, FRI-SFR) was convened. Declaration of all conflicts of interest (COI) policy by all participants was mandatory throughout the development of the guidelines. The entire guideline process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system for assessment of the available level of evidence with particular emphasis to avoid formulating strong recommendations in the absence of high level. Some recommendations were left ungraded.