Factors influencing secondary overtriage in trauma patients undergoing interhospital transfer: A 10-year multi-center study in Hong Kong.

BACKGROUND: With the development of regionalised trauma networks, interhospital transfer of trauma patients is an inevitable component of the trauma system. However, unnecessary transfer is a common phenomenon, and it is not without risk and cost. A better understanding of secondary overtriage would enable emergency physicians to make better decisions about trauma transfers and allow guidelines to be developed to support this decision making. This study aimed to describe the pattern of secondary overtriage in Hong Kong and identify its associated factors. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of 10-years of prospectively collected multi-center data from two trauma registries in the New Territories of Hong Kong (2013-2022). The primary outcome is secondary overtriage, which was defined as early discharge alive within 48 h, Injury Severity Score (ISS) <15, and no surgical operation done. Patient characteristics, physiology, anatomy and investigation variables were compared against secondary overtriage using univariate and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: During the study period, 3852 patients underwent interhospital transfer from a non-trauma center to a trauma center, and 809 (21 %) of the transfers were considered secondary overtriage. The secondary overtriage rate was higher in pediatric age groups at 34.8 % (97/279). Logistic regression analysis showed secondary overtriage to be associated with blunt trauma and an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score of <3 for head or neck, thorax, abdomen and extremities. CONCLUSION: Interhospital transfer is an essential component of the trauma system. However, over one-fifth of the transfers were considered unnecessary in Hong Kong, and this could be considered to be an inefficient use of resources as well as cause inconvenience to patients and their families. We have identified related factors including blunt trauma, AIS <3 scores for head or neck, thorax, abdomen and extremities, and opportunities to establish and improve on transfer protocols. Further research should be aimed to safely reduce interhospital transfers in the future to improve the efficiency of the Hong Kong trauma system.

Intraventricular 4D flow cardiovascular magnetic resonance for assessing patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a pilot study.

Diagnosing heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) remains challenging. Intraventricular four-dimensional flow (4D flow) phase-contrast cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) can assess different components of left ventricular (LV) flow including direct flow, delayed ejection, retained inflow and residual volume. This could be utilised to identify HFpEF. This study investigated if intraventricular 4D flow CMR could differentiate HFpEF patients from non-HFpEF and asymptomatic controls. Suspected HFpEF patients and asymptomatic controls were recruited prospectively. HFpEF patients were confirmed using European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2021 expert recommendations. Non-HFpEF patients were diagnosed if suspected HFpEF patients did not fulfil ESC 2021 criteria. LV direct flow, delayed ejection, retained inflow and residual volume were obtained from 4D flow CMR images. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were plotted. 63 subjects (25 HFpEF patients, 22 non-HFpEF patients and 16 asymptomatic controls) were included in this study. 46% were male, mean age 69.8 ± 9.1 years. CMR 4D flow derived LV direct flow and residual volume could differentiate HFpEF vs combined group of non-HFpEF and asymptomatic controls (p < 0.001 for both) as well as HFpEF vs non-HFpEF patients (p = 0.021 and p = 0.005, respectively). Among the 4 parameters, direct flow had the largest area under curve (AUC) of 0.781 when comparing HFpEF vs combined group of non-HFpEF and asymptomatic controls, while residual volume had the largest AUC of 0.740 when comparing HFpEF and non-HFpEF patients. CMR 4D flow derived LV direct flow and residual volume show promise in differentiating HFpEF patients from non-HFpEF patients.

Feasibility and safety of left distal trans-radial approach for coronary angiogram and percutaneous coronary intervention in a center in Hong Kong.

INTRODUCTION: The left distal trans-radial approach is not only more convenient for the operator than the conventional left forearm radial approach, it is also more comfortable for right-hand patients during the peri-procedural period. Comparing with conventional approach, it has lower bleeding risk, less pain and lower risk of radial artery occlusion. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and the safety of left distal trans-radial approach for coronary angiogram and percutaneous coronary intervention in Hong Kong Chinese who had smaller body built and therefore smaller radial arterial size. METHOD: In this single-center prospective study, 72 patients undergoing elective coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention were recruited from August to October 2018. All right-handed patients aged 18 or above undergoing elective procedures during the period were recruited. Exclusion criteria were non-palpable radial arteries, pregnancies, incapability to consent, abnormal Allen's test, and emergency procedures. Sixty patients (42 males, age ranging from 45 to 86 years old) were recruited and underwent the procedures via left distal radial approach. The measurements during access establishment, the procedure details, complications, patients' satisfaction, and arterial occlusion rate were studied. RESULTS: The procedures with left distal radial approach were successful in 51 patients (85%). Crossover rate to conventional right radial approach was 15% (nine patients). Among successful cases, the mean patients' satisfaction was 8.32/10 and the mean pain score was 1.6/10. Post-procedural radial artery occlusion was not encountered. CONCLUSION: Left distal radial approach is a feasible alternative for patients undergoing coronary angiography and/or percutaneous coronary intervention in Hong Kong Chinese patients. It provides good comfortability with minimal pain in right-handed patients. The risk of radial artery occlusion is minimal.

Diagnostic accuracy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance strain analysis and atrial size to identify heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Aims: Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) continues to be a diagnostic challenge. Cardiac magnetic resonance atrial measurement, feature tracking (CMR-FT), tagging has long been suggested to diagnose HFpEF and potentially complement echocardiography especially when echocardiography is indeterminate. Data supporting the use of CMR atrial measurements, CMR-FT or tagging, are absent. Our aim is to conduct a prospective case-control study assessing the diagnostic accuracy of CMR atrial volume/area, CMR-FT, and tagging to diagnose HFpEF amongst patients suspected of having HFpEF. Methods and results: One hundred and twenty-one suspected HFpEF patients were prospectively recruited from four centres. Patients underwent echocardiography, CMR, and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) measurements within 24 h to diagnose HFpEF. Patients without HFpEF diagnosis underwent catheter pressure measurements or stress echocardiography to confirm HFpEF or non-HFpEF. Area under the curve (AUC) was determined by comparing HFpEF with non-HFpEF patients. Fifty-three HFpEF (median age 78 years, interquartile range 74-82 years) and thirty-eight non-HFpEF (median age 70 years, interquartile range 64-76 years) were recruited. Cardiac magnetic resonance left atrial (LA) reservoir strain (ResS), LA area index (LAAi), and LA volume index (LAVi) had the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUCs 0.803, 0.815, and 0.776, respectively). Left atrial ResS, LAAi, and LAVi had significantly better diagnostic accuracy than CMR-FT left ventricle (LV)/right ventricle (RV) parameters and tagging (P < 0.01). Tagging circumferential and radial strain had poor diagnostic accuracy (AUC 0.644 and 0.541, respectively). Conclusion: Cardiac magnetic resonance LA ResS, LAAi, and LAVi have the highest diagnostic accuracy to identify HFpEF patients from non-HFpEF patients amongst clinically suspected HFpEF patients. Cardiac magnetic resonance feature tracking LV/RV parameters and tagging had low diagnostic accuracy to diagnose HFpEF.