Incidence, outcomes and costs of severe sepsis and septic shock in geriatric trauma patients: Analysis of 2,563,463 hospitalizations at 3,284 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Severe sepsis/septic shock (sepsis) is a leading cause of death in hospitalized trauma patients. Geriatric trauma patients are an increasing proportion of trauma care but little recent, large-scale, research exists in this high-risk demographic. The objectives of this study are to identify incidence, outcomes and costs of sepsis in geriatric trauma patients. METHODS: Patients at short-term, nonfederal hospitals 65 years or older with ≥1 injury International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification code were selected from 2016 to 2019 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytical Files. Sepsis was defined as International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes R6520 and R6521. A log-linear model was used to examine the association of Sepsis with mortality, adjusting for age, sex, race, Elixhauser score, and Injury Severity Score. Dominance analysis using logistic regression was used to determine the relative importance of individual variables in predicting Sepsis. Institutional review board exemption was granted for this study. RESULTS: There were 2,563,436 hospitalizations from 3,284 hospitals (62.8% female; 90.4% White; 72.7% falls; median ISS, 6.0). Incidence of Sepsis was 2.1%. Sepsis patients had significantly worse outcomes. Mortality risk was significantly higher in septic patients (adjusted risk ratio, 3.98, 95% confidence interval, 3.92-4.04). Elixhauser score contributed the most to the prediction of Sepsis, followed by ISS (McFadden's R2 = 9.7% and 5.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Severe sepsis/septic shock occurs infrequently among geriatric trauma patients but is associated with increased mortality and resource utilization. Pre-existing comorbidities influence Sepsis occurrence more than Injury Severity Score or age in this group, identifying a population at high risk. Clinical management of geriatric trauma patients should focus on rapid identification and prompt aggressive action in high-risk patients to minimize the occurrence of sepsis and maximize survival. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Survey of Diagnostic and Management Practices in Small Bowel Obstruction: Individual and Generational Variation Despite Practice Guidelines.

Background: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) is a common disorder managed by surgeons. Despite extensive publications and management guidelines, there is no universally accepted approach to its diagnosis and management. We conducted a survey of acute care surgeons to elucidate their SBO practice patterns.Methods: A self-report survey of SBO diagnosis and management practices was designed and distributed by email to AAST surgeons who cared for adult SBO patients. Responses were analyzed with descriptive statistics and Chi-square test of independence at α = .05.Results: There were 201 useable surveys: 53% ≥ 50 years, 77% male, 77% at level I trauma centers. Only 35.8% reported formal hospital SBO management guidelines. Computed tomography (CT) scan was the only diagnostic exam listed as "essential" by the majority of respondents (82.6%). Following NG decompression, 153 (76.1%) would "always/frequently" administer a water-soluble contrast challenge (GC). There were notable age differences in approach. Compared to those ≥50 years, younger surgeons were less likely to deem plain abdominal films as "essential" (16.0% vs 40.2%; P < .01) but more likely to require CT scan (88.3% vs 77.6%; P = .045) for diagnosis and to "always/frequently" administer GC (84.0% vs 69.2%; P < .01). Younger surgeons used laparoscopy "frequently" more often than older surgeons (34.0% vs 21.5%, P = .05).Discussion: There is significant variation in diagnosis and management of SBO among respondents in this convenience sample, despite existing PMGs. Novel age differences in responses were observed, which prompts further evaluation. Additional research is needed to determine whether variation in practice patterns is widespread and affects outcomes.

Low Prevalence but High Impact of COVID-19 Positive Status in Adult Trauma Patients: A Multi-institutional Analysis of 28 904 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Few large investigations have addressed the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among trauma patients and impact on providers. The purpose of this study was to quantify the prevalence of COVID-19 infection among trauma patients by timing of diagnosis, assess nosocomial exposure risk, and evaluate the impact of COVID-19 positive status on morbidity and mortality. METHODS: Registry data from adults admitted 4/1/2020-10/31/2020 from 46 level I/II trauma centers were grouped by: timing of first positive status (Day 1, Day 2-6, or Day ≥ 7); overall Positive/Negative status; or Unknown if test results were unavailable. Groups were compared on outcomes (Trauma Quality Improvement Program complications) and mortality using univariate analysis and adjusted logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 28 904 patients (60.7% male, mean age: 56.4, mean injury severity score: 10.5). Of 13 274 (46%) patients with known COVID-19 status, 266 (2%) were Positive Day 1, 119 (1%) Days 2-6, 33 (.2%) Day ≥ 7, and 12 856 (97%) tested Negative. COVID-19 Positive patients had significantly worse outcomes compared to Negative; unadjusted comparisons showed longer hospital length of stay (10.98 vs 7.47;P < .05), higher rates of intensive care unit (57.7% vs 45.7%; P < .05) and ventilation use (22.5% vs 16.9%; P < .05). Adjusted comparisons showed higher rates of acute respiratory distress syndrome (1.7% vs .4%; P < .05) and death (8.1% vs 3.4%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study conducted during the early pandemic period revealed few trauma patients tested COVID-19 positive, suggesting relatively low exposure risk to care providers. COVID-19 positive status was associated with significantly higher mortality and specific morbidity. Further analysis is needed with consideration for care guidelines specific to COVID-19 positive trauma patients as the pandemic continues.

Findings on Repeat Posttraumatic Brain Computed Tomography Scans in Older Patients With Minimal Head Trauma and the Impact of Existing Antithrombotic Use.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the utility of routine rescanning of older, mild head trauma patients with an initial negative brain computed tomography (CT), who is on a preinjury antithrombotic (AT) agent by assessing the rate of delayed intracranial hemorrhage (dICH), need for surgery, and attributable mortality. METHODS: Participating centers were trained and provided data collection instruments per institutional review board-approved protocols. Data were obtained from manual chart review and electronic medical record download. Adults ≥55 years seen at Level I/II Trauma Centers, between 2017 and 2019 with suspected head trauma, Glasgow Coma Scale 14 to 15, negative initial brain CT, and no other Abbreviated Injury Scale injuries >2 were identified, grouped by preinjury AT therapy (AT- or AT+) and compared on dICH rate, need for operative neurosurgical intervention, and attributable mortality using univariate analysis (α=.05). RESULTS: A total of 2,950 patients from 24 centers were enrolled; 280 (9.5%) had a repeat brain CT. In those rescanned, the dICH rate was 15/126 (11.9%) for AT- and 6/154 (3.9%) in AT+. Assuming nonrescanned patients did not suffer clinically meaningful dICH, the dICH rate would be 15/2001 (0.7%) for AT- and 6/949 (0.6%) for AT+. No surgical operations were done for dICH. All-cause mortality was 9/2950 (0.3%) and attributable mortality was 1/2950 (0.03%). The attributable death was an AT+, dICH patient whose family declined intervention. CONCLUSION: In older patients with an initial Glasgow Coma Scale of 14 to 15 and a negative initial brain CT scan, the dICH rate is low (<1%) and of minimal clinical consequence, regardless of AT use. In addition, no patient had operative neurosurgical intervention. Therefore, routine rescanning is not supported based on the results of this study.

Hyperglycemia in nondiabetic adult trauma patients is associated with worse outcomes than diabetic patients: An analysis of 95,764 patients.

BACKGROUND: The adverse impact of acute hyperglycemia is well documented but its specific effects on nondiabetic trauma patients are unclear. The purpose of this study was to analyze the differential impact of hyperglycemia on outcomes between diabetic and nondiabetic trauma inpatients. METHODS: Adults admitted 2018 to 2019 to 46 Level I/II trauma centers with two or more blood glucose tests were analyzed. Diabetes status was determined from International Classification of Diseases-10th Rev.-Clinical Modification, trauma registry, and/or hemoglobin A1c greater than 6.5. Patients with and without one or more hyperglycemic result >180 mg/dL were compared. Logistic regression examined the effects of hyperglycemia and diabetes on outcomes, adjusting for age, sex, Injury Severity Score, and body mass index. RESULTS: There were 95,764 patients: 54% male; mean age, 61 years; mean Injury Severity Score, 10; diabetic, 21%. Patients with hyperglycemia had higher mortality and worse outcomes compared with those without hyperglycemia. Nondiabetic hyperglycemic patients had the highest odds of mortality (diabetic: adjusted odds ratio, 3.11; 95% confidence interval, 2.8-3.5; nondiabetics: adjusted odds ratio, 7.5; 95% confidence interval, 6.8-8.4). Hyperglycemic nondiabetics experienced worse outcomes on every measure when compared with nonhyperglycemic nondiabetics, with higher rates of sepsis (1.1 vs. 0.1%, p < 0.001), more SSIs (1.0 vs. 0.1%, p < 0.001), longer mean hospital length of stay (11.4 vs. 5.0, p < 0.001), longer mean intensive care unit length of stay (8.5 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001), higher rates of intensive care unit use (68.6% vs. 35.1), and more ventilator use (42.4% vs. 7.3%). CONCLUSION: Hyperglycemia is associated with increased odds of mortality in both diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Hyperglycemia during hospitalization in nondiabetics was associated with the worst outcomes and represents a potential opportunity for intervention in this high-risk group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management; Level III.