Maintaining a whole blood-centered transfusion improves survival in hemorrhagic resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: Whole blood (WB) transfusion has been shown to improve mortality in trauma resuscitation. The optimal ratio of packed red blood cells (pRBC) to WB in emergent transfusion has not been determined. We hypothesized that a low pRBC/WB transfusion ratio is associated with improved survival in trauma patients. METHODS: We analyzed the 2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database to identify patients who underwent emergent surgery for hemorrhage control and were transfused within 4 hours of hospital arrival, excluding transfers or deaths in the emergency department. We stratified patients based on pRBC/WB ratios. The primary outcome was mortality at 24 hours. Logistic regression was performed to estimate odds of mortality among ratio groups compared with WB alone, adjusting for injury severity, time to intervention, and demographics. RESULTS: Our cohort included 17,562 patients; of those, 13,678 patients had only pRBC transfused and were excluded. Fresh frozen plasma/pRBC ratio was balanced in all groups. Among those who received WB (n = 3,884), there was a significant increase in 24-hour mortality with higher pRBC/WB ratios (WB alone 5.2%, 1:1 10.9%, 2:1 11.8%, 3:1 14.9%, 4:1 20.9%, 5:1 34.1%, p = 0.0001). Using empirical cutpoint estimation, we identified a 3:1 ratio or less as an optimal cutoff point. Adjusted odds ratios of 24-hour mortality for 4:1 and 5:1 groups were 2.85 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19-6.81) and 2.89 (95% CI, 1.29-6.49), respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios of 24-hour mortality were 2.83 (95% CI, 1.18-6.77) for 3:1 ratio, 3.67 (95% CI, 1.57-8.57) for 4:1 ratio, and 1.97 (95% CI, 0.91-4.23) for 5:1 ratio. CONCLUSION: Our analysis shows that higher pRBC/WB ratios at 4 hours diminished survival benefits of WB in trauma resuscitation. Further efforts should emphasize this relationship to optimize trauma resuscitation protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Lucky number 13: Association between center-specific chest wall stabilization volumes and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Chest wall stabilization (CWS) improves outcomes for patients with chest wall injury (CWI). We hypothesized that patients treated at centers with higher annual CWS volumes experience superior outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective study of adults with acute CWI undergoing surgical stabilization of rib or sternal fractures within the 2019 Trauma Quality Improvement Program database, excluding those with 24-hour mortality or any Abbreviated Injury Scale body region of six, was conducted. Hospitals were grouped in quartiles by annual CWS volume. Our primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality, ventilator-associated pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and unplanned intubation or intensive care unit readmission. Regression was controlled for age, sex, Injury Severity Scale, flail chest, medical comorbidities, and Abbreviated Injury Scale chest. We performed cut-point analysis and compared patient outcomes from high- and low-volume centers. RESULTS: We included 3,207 patients undergoing CWS at 430 hospitals with annual volumes ranging from 1 to 66. There were no differences between groups in age, sex, or Injury Severity Scale. Patients in the highest volume quartile (Q4) experienced significantly lower rates of the primary outcome (Q4, 14%; Q3, 18.4%; Q2, 17.4%; Q1, 22.1%) and significantly shorter hospital and intensive care unit lengths of stay. Q4 versus Q1 had lower adjusted odds of the primary outcome (odds ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.80). An optimal cut point of 12.5 procedures annually was used to define high- and low-volume centers. Patients treated at high-volume centers experienced significantly lower rates of the primary composite outcome, in-hospital mortality, and deep venous thrombosis with shorter lengths of stay and higher rates of home discharge. CONCLUSION: Center-specific CWS volume is associated with superior in-hospital patient outcomes. These findings support efforts to establish CWI centers of excellence. Further investigation should explore the impact of center-specific volume on patient-reported outcomes including pain and postdischarge quality of life. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

Comparison of Infectious Complications after Surgical Fixation versus Epidural Analgesia for Acute Rib Fractures.

Background: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) is associated with decreased mortality and respiratory complications. Patients who are not offered SSRF are often treated with epidural analgesia (EA) to reduce pain and improve pulmonary mechanics. We sought to compare infectious complications in patients undergoing either SSRF or EA. We hypothesized that infectious complications are equivalent between the two treatment groups. Patients and Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult trauma patients with acute rib fractures within the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) 2017 dataset and used International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes to identify patients who underwent SSRF or EA. We excluded patients who received both treatments in the same admission. Our primary outcome was the development of sepsis. Secondary outcomes were specific infections including ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), and central line-associated blood stream infections (CLABSI). Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to adjust for age, injury severity score (ISS), chest Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS), flail chest, traumatic brain injury (TBI), and comorbidities. Results: We identified 2,252 and 1,299 patients who underwent SSRF and EA, respectively. Patients with SSRF were younger with higher ISS and longer length of stay (LOS). There was no difference in mortality, however, SSRF had higher rate of sepsis (1.6% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.001), VAP (5.1% vs. 0.9%; p < 0.001), CAUTI (1.7% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.001), and CLABSI (0.2% vs. 0%; p = 0.05). On multiple regression, SSRF was associated with higher odds of sepsis (odds ratio [OR], 2.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-6.63), CAUTI (OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.11-7.88), and VAP (OR, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.73-6.06). Among those who developed sepsis, there was no significant difference in mortality or LOS between groups. Conclusions: Despite no difference in mortality, SSRF was associated with increased risk of septic complications in patients with rib fractures compared to epidural analgesia. Identifying, and addressing, risk factors of sepsis in this patient population is a critical performance improvement process to optimize outcomes without increased adverse events.