Predicting Unplanned Readmissions to the Intensive Care Unit in the Trauma Population.

Background: Unplanned readmission to intensive care units (UR-ICU) in trauma is associated with increased hospital length of stay and significant morbidity and mortality. We identify independent predictors of UR-ICU and construct a nomogram to estimate readmission probability. Materials and Methods: We performed an IRB-approved retrospective case-control study at a Level I trauma center between January 2019 and December 2021. Patients with UR-ICU (n = 175) were matched with patients who were not readmitted (NR-ICU) (n = 175). Univariate and multivariable binary linear regressionanalyses were performed (SPSS Version 28, IBM Corp), and a nomogram was created (Stata 18.0, StataCorp LLC). Results: Demographics, comorbidities, and injury- and hospital course-related factors were examined as potential prognostic indicators of UR-ICU. The mortality rate of UR-ICU was 22.29% vs 6.29% for NR-ICU (P < .001). Binary linear regression identified seven independent predictors that contributed to UR-ICU: shock (P < .001) or intracranial surgery (P = .015) during ICU admission, low hematocrit (P = .001) or sedation administration in the 24 hours before ICU discharge (P < .001), active infection treatment (P = .192) or leukocytosis on ICU discharge (P = .01), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (P = .002). A nomogram was generated to estimate the probability of UR-ICU and guide decisions on ICU discharge appropriateness. Discussion: In trauma, UR-ICU is often accompanied by poor outcomes and death. Shock, intracranial surgery, anemia, sedative administration, ongoing infection treatment, leukocytosis, and COPD are significant risk factors for UR-ICU. A predictive nomogram may help better assess readiness for ICU discharge.

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in critically ill trauma and surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: and Purpose: Currently, dexmedetomidine versus propofol has primarily been studied in medical and cardiac surgery patients with outcomes indicating safe and effective sedation. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in trauma and surgical patients. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective study conducted in the Trauma/Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at a Level I academic trauma center. It included patients 18 years of age or older requiring mechanical ventilation who were randomly assigned based on unit bed location to receive either dexmedetomidine or propofol. The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included mortality; proportion of time in target sedation; incidence of delirium, hypotension, and bradycardia; and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: A total of 57 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation (median [IQR]) between the dexmedetomidine (78.5[125] hours) and propofol (105[130] hours; p = 0.15) groups. There was no difference between groups in ICU mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or incidence of delirium. Safety outcomes were also similar. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group spent a significantly greater percentage of time in target sedation (98[8] %) compared to propofol group (92[10] %; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that, similar to medical and cardiac surgery patients, dexmedetomidine and propofol are safe and effective sedation agents in critically ill trauma and surgical patients; however, dexmedetomidine achieves target sedation better than propofol for this specific population.

Quetiapine for delirium prophylaxis in high-risk critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in patients admitted to the surgical trauma intensive care unit (ICU), and the risk factors for these patients differ from medical patients. Given the morbidity and mortality associated with delirium, efforts to prevent it may improve patient outcomes, but previous efforts pharmacologically have been limited by side effects and insignificant results. We hypothesized that scheduled quetiapine could reduce the incidence of delirium in this population. METHODS: The study included 71 adult patients who were at high-risk for the development of delirium (PRE-DELIRIC Score ≥50%, history of dementia, alcohol misuse, or drug abuse). Patients were randomized to receive quetiapine 12.5 mg every 12 h for delirium or no pharmacologic prophylaxis within 48 h of admission to the ICU. The primary end point was the incidence of delirium during admission to the ICU. Secondary end points included time to onset of delirium, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU and hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and adverse events. RESULTS: The incidence of delirium during admission to the ICU was 45.5% (10/22) in the quetiapine group and 77.6% (38/49) in the group that did not receive pharmacological prophylaxis. The mean time to onset of delirium was 1.4 days for those who did not receive prophylaxis versus 2.5 days for those who did (p = 0.06). The quetiapine group significantly reduced ventilator duration from 8.2 days to 1.5 days (p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggested that scheduled, low-dose quetiapine is effective in preventing delirium in high-risk, surgical trauma ICU patients.

Treatment With Oral Versus Intravenous Acetaminophen in Elderly Trauma Patients With Rib Fractures: A Prospective Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Rib fractures are common injuries among traumatically injured patients, and elderly patients with rib fractures are at increased risk for adverse events and death. The purpose of this study was to determine if oral Per os (PO) acetaminophen is as effective as intravenous (IV) acetaminophen in treating the pain associated with rib fractures. METHODS: We performed a single-center, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded study. Trauma patients who were ≥65 years old and had ≥1 rib fracture were included in this study. Patients were randomized into IV acetaminophen and oral placebo (n = 63) or IV placebo and oral solution acetaminophen (n = 75) groups. The primary outcome was a mean reduction in pain score at 24 hours, and secondary outcomes included opioid use, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, hospital mortality, the difference in incentive spirometry, and development of pneumonia. RESULTS: Among the 138 patients included, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 study groups in a mean reduction in pain score at 24 hours after injury (PO: 3.24, IV: 2.49; P = .230). Opioid pain medication use was equivalent between groups (P = .212), and there was no significant difference in hospital mortality rate between groups (P = .827). There was no statistically significant difference in ICU LOS, hospital LOS, or development of pneumonia. DISCUSSION: In elderly trauma patients (age ≥65 years) with 1 or more rib fractures, PO acetaminophen is equivalent to IV acetaminophen for pain control, with no difference in morbidity or mortality. Oral acetaminophen should be preferentially used over IV acetaminophen when treating the elderly trauma patient with rib fractures.