A Controlled Study in CPR-Survival in Propensity Score Matched Full-Code and Do-Not-Resuscitate ICU Patients.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) causes significant injuries and increased cost among transiently resuscitated patients that do not survive their hospitalizations. Descriptive studies show zero and near-zero percent survival for CPR recipients with high Apache II scores. Despite these factors, no controlled studies exist in CPR to guide patient selection for CPR candidacy. Our objective was therefore to perform a controlled study in CPR to inform recommendations for CPR candidacy. We hypothesize that the protective effects of CPR decrease as illness severity increases, and that Full-Code status provides no survival benefit over Do-Not-Resuscitate (DNR) status for patients with the highest predicted mortality by Apache IV score. METHODS: We performed propensity-score matched survival analyses between Full-Code and DNR patients after stratifying by predicted mortality quartiles using Apache IV scores. Primary outcomes were mortality hazard ratios. Secondary outcomes were Median Survival Differences, ICU LOS, and tracheostomy rates. RESULTS: Among 17,710 propensity-score matched ICU encounters, DNR status was associated with greater mortality in the first through third predicted mortality quartiles. There was no difference in survival outcomes in the fourth quartile (HR 0.99, p = .96). There was a stepwise decrease in the mortality hazard ratio for DNR patients as quartiles increased. CONCLUSION: Full-Code status provides no survival benefit over DNR status in individuals with greater than 75% predicted mortality by Apache IV score. There is a stepwise decrease in survival benefit for Full-Code patients as predicted mortality increases. We propose that it is reasonable to consider a very high predicted mortality by Apache IV score a contraindication to CPR given the lack of survival benefit seen in these patients. Larger studies with similar methods should be performed to reinforce or refute these findings.

Routine in-person post-operative follow-up for uncomplicated laparoscopic appendectomy does not change management.

INTRODUCTION: Eliminating points in the continuum of care that do not change management is a safe strategy for cost containment and workflow efficiency in health systems. As a process improvement initiative, we sought to identify whether routine, outpatient follow-up changes management in laparoscopic appendectomy in a military hospital. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of adult patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy during a one-year period. The primary outcome was identification of a change in management during routine in person follow-up. Secondary outcomes included location of patient presentation with a post-operative event (clinic, emergency department, primary care provider), and if those visits changed management. Events were defined as any deviation from the typical post-operative course within 6 weeks of surgery, including abnormal specimen pathology. RESULTS: One-hundred and seventy-six appendectomies were performed over one year, and 148 patients met inclusion criteria (median age = 27, 66.9% male). Perforation was identified in 10.1% of patients. Seventeen-point-five percent of patients had a post-operative event, of which persistent pain was the most common. Only 2.0% of all patients saw a change in management at their routine in person follow-up appointment. Eighty percent of patients with any post-operative events sought care outside of their routine in person follow up appointments. No variable was independently associated with a change in management. CONCLUSION: Routine in-person clinical follow-up for laparoscopic appendectomy almost never changes management. Perforated appendicitis may be an indication for in-person follow-up. Considering a telemedicine model for post-operative follow-up of laparoscopic appendectomy patients will provide a safe and effective alternative to in-person clinic visits, while saving patients time and allowing providers the clinic freedom to prioritize more urgent and new patients.

In vivo measurements of medial branch nerve depth and adjacent osseous structures for ablation of facet-related back pain: Predictors for patient candidacy.

BACKGROUND: Medial branch (MB) targeting during RF ablation for facetogenic back pain is usually performed with flouroscopic guidance yet no specific measurements on the target depth have been published. In order to understand candidacy for other potential ablation methods, we sought to determine the actual MB depth and measurements of adjacent osseous structures. METHODS: CT scans without contrast of the lumbar spine performed in the supine position were retrospectively analyzed in 100 patients. Axial slices less than or equal to 2.5 mm with sagittal and coronal reformations were evaluated. The following distances were measured bilaterally at the L2-L5 levels: The depth from the skin to the MB nerve (anatomic target for RF ablation) at a 15° angulation, the smallest width of the pedicle, and the length, height and width of the transverse process. Age, gender, weight, height, and BMI were correlated with the above measurements. RESULTS: The average distance and 95% CI from skin-to-MB in mm at a 15°angle to the skin increased as the lumbar level increased measuring 64.4 (62.4-66.5) at L2, 72.0 (69.7-74.3) at L3, 79.2 (76.9-81.6) at L4, and 79.1 (76.7-81.5) at L5. The average thickness of the pedicles also increased as the lumbar level increased measuring 9.2 mm at L2 and 16.1 mm at L5. Body weight, lumbar level, and female gender were associated with increased MB depth. Taller stature was associated with more superficial MB depth. We eliminated mild interaction effects between height, weight, and gender by substituting BMI for height and weight without affecting r2. Linear regression revealed the following equation: MB Depth (mm) = 2.2*BMI + 4.9*lumbar vertebral level + 3.6 (if female) - 5.4, which fit the data well (P<0.001, r2 = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that the MB resides 107 mm or less in depth when measured at a 15° angulation from the skin in > 95% of patients and the distance increases as the lumbar level increases.

Early Craniectomy Improves Intracranial and Cerebral Perfusion Pressure after Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

After traumatic brain injury, decompressive craniectomy (DC) is a second-tier, late therapy for refractory intracranial hypertension. We hypothesize that early DC, based on CT evidence of intracranial hypertension, improves intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP). From September 2008 to January 2015, 286 traumatic brain injury patients requiring invasive ICP monitoring at a single Level I trauma center were reviewed. DC and non-DC patients were propensity score matched 1:1, based on demographics, hemodynamics, injury severity score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), transfusion requirements, and need for vasopressor therapy. Data are presented as M ± SD or median (IQR) and compared at P ≤ 0.05. The study population was 42 ± 17 years, 84 per cent male, ISS = 29 ± 11, GCS = 6(5), length of stay (LOS) = 32(40) days, and 28 per cent mortality. There were 116/286 (41%) DC, of which 105/116 (91%) were performed at the time of ICP placement. For 50 DC propensity matched to 50 non-DC patients, the midline shift was 7(11) versus 0(5) mm (P < 0.001), abnormal ICP (hours > 20 mm Hg) was 1(10) versus 8(16) (P = 0.017), abnormal CPP (hours < 60 mm Hg) was 0(6) versus 4(9) (P = 0.008), daily minimum CPP (mm Hg) was 67(13) versus 62(17) (P = 0.010), and daily maximum ICP (mm Hg) was 18(9) versus 22(11) (P < 0.001). However, LOS [33(37) versus 25(34) days], mortality (24 versus 30%), and Glasgow Outcome Score Extended [3.0(3.0) versus 3.0(4.0)] did not improve significantly. Early DC for CT evidence of intracranial hypertension decreased abnormal ICP and CPP time and improved ICP and CPP thresholds, but had no obvious effect on the outcome.

Assessing Field Triage Decisions and the International Classification Injury Severity Score (ICISS) at Predicting Outcomes of Trauma Patients.

Florida considers the International Classification Injury Severity Score (ICISS) from hospital discharges within a geographic region in the apportionment of trauma centers (TCs). Patients with an ICISS <0.85 are considered to require triage to a TC, yet many are triaged to an emergency department (ED). We assess outcomes of those with an ICISS <0.85 by the actual triage decision of emergency medical services (EMS). From October 2011 to October 2013, 39,021 consecutive admissions with injury ICD-9 codes were analyzed. ICISS was calculated from the product of the survival risk ratios for a patient's three worst injuries. Outcomes were compared between patients with ICISS <0.85 either triaged to the ED or its separate, neighboring, free-standing TC at a large urban hospital. A total of 32,191 (83%) patients were triaged to the ED by EMS and 6,827 (17%) were triaged to the TC. Of these, 2544 had an ICISS <0.85, with 2145 (84%) being triaged to the TC and 399 (16%) to the ED. In these patients, those taken to the TC more often required admission, and those taken to the ED had better outcomes. When the confounders influencing triage to an ED or a TC are eliminated, those triaged by EMS to the ED rather than the TC had better overall outcomes. EMS providers better identified patients at risk for mortality than did the retrospective application of ICISS. ICISS <0.85 does not identify the absolute need for TC as EMS providers were able to appropriately triage a large portion of this population to the ED.

Predictors of mortality in pediatric trauma: experiences of a level 1 trauma center and an assessment of the International Classification Injury Severity Score (ICISS).

OBJECTIVES: Injury severity scoring tools allow systematic comparison of outcomes in trauma research and quality improvement by indexing an expected mortality risk for certain injuries. This study investigated the predictive value of the empirically derived ICD9-derived Injury Severity Score (ICISS) compared to expert consensus-derived scoring systems for trauma mortality in a pediatric population. METHODS: 1935 consecutive trauma patients aged <18 years from 1/2000 to 12/2012 were reviewed. Mechanism of injury (MOI), Injury Severity Score (ISS), Revised Trauma Score (RTS), Trauma Score ISS (TRISS), and ICISS were compared using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis and receiver operator characteristic analysis. RESULTS: The population was a median age of 11 ± 6 year, 70 % male, and 76 % blunt injury. Median ISS 13 ± 12 and overall mortality 3.5 %. Independent predictors of mortality were initial hematocrit [odds ratio (OR) 0.83 (0.73-0.95)], HCO3 [OR 0.82 (0.67-0.98)], Glasgow Coma Scale score [OR 0.75 (0.62-0.90)], and ISS [OR 1.10 (1.04-1.15)]. TRISS was superior to ICISS in predicting survival [area under receiver operator curve: 0.992 (0.982-1.000) vs 0.888 (0.838-0.938)]. CONCLUSIONS: ICISS was inferior to existing injury scoring tools at predicting mortality in pediatric trauma patients.