4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate is not inferior to andexanet alfa for the reversal or oral factor Xa inhibitors: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Andexanet Alfa (AA) is the only FDA approved reversal agent for apixaban and rivaroxaban (DOAC). There are no studies comparing its efficacy with 4-Factor Prothrombin Complex Concentrate (PCC). This study aimed to compare PCC to AA for DOAC reversal, hypothesizing non-inferiority of PCC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, non-inferiority multicenter study of adult patients admitted from July 1, 2018 to December 31, 2019 who had taken a DOAC within 12 hours of injury, were transfused red blood cells (RBCs) or had traumatic brain injury, and received AA or PCC. Primary outcome was PRBC unit transfusion. Secondary outcome with ICU length of stay. MICE imputation was used to account for missing data and zero-inflated poisson regression was used to account for an excess of zero units of RBC transfused. 2 Units difference in RBC transfusion was selected as non-inferior. RESULTS: Results: From 263 patients at 10 centers, 77 (29%) received PCC and 186 (71%) AA. Patients had similar transfusion rates across reversal treatment groups (23.7% AA vs 19.5% PCC) with median transfusion in both groups of 0 RBC. According to the Poisson component, PCC increases the amount of RBC transfusion by 1.02 times (95% CI: 0.79-1.33) compared to AA after adjusting for other covariates. The averaged amount of RBC transfusion (non-zero group) is 6.13. Multiplying this number by the estimated rate ratio, PCC is estimated to have an increase RBC transfusion by 0.123 (95% CI: 0.53-2.02) units compared to AA. CONCLUSION: PCC appears non-inferior to AA for reversal of DOACs for RBC transfusion in traumatically injured patients. Additional prospective, randomized trials are necessary to compare PCC and AA for the treatment of hemorrhage in injured patients on DOACs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, Level III.

Facial Fractures Have Similar Outcomes When Managed by Either Otolaryngology or Plastic Surgery: Encounters From a Single Level I Trauma Center.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort. Objective: Traumatic facial fractures (FFs) often require specialty consultation with Plastic Surgery (PS) or Otolaryngology (ENT); however, referral patterns are often non-standardized and institution specific. Therefore, we sought to compare management patterns and outcomes between PS and ENT, hypothesizing no difference in operative rates, complications, or mortality. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients with FFs at a single Level I trauma center from 2014 to 2017. Patients were compared by consulting service: PS vs. ENT. Chi-square and Mann-Whitney-U tests were performed. Results: Of the 755 patients with FFs, 378 were consulted by PS and 377 by ENT. There was no difference in demographic data (P > 0.05). Patients managed by ENT received a longer mean course of antibiotics (9.4 vs 7.0 days, P = 0.008) and had a lower rate of open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) (9.8% vs. 15.3%, P = 0.017), compared to PS patients. No difference was observed in overall operative rate (15.1% vs. 19.8%), use of computed tomography (CT) imaging (99% vs. 99%), time to surgery (65 vs. 55 hours, P = 0.198), length of stay (LOS) (4 vs. 4 days), 30-day complication rate (10.6% vs. 7.1%), or mortality (4.5% vs. 2.6%) (all P > 0.05). Conclusion: Our study demonstrated similar baseline characteristics, operative rates, complications, and mortality between FFs patients who had consultation by ENT and PS. This supports the practice of allowing both ENT and PS to care for trauma FFs patients, as there appears to be similar standardized care and outcomes. Future studies are needed to evaluate the generalizability of our findings.

Comparison of BMI on operative time and complications of robotic inguinal hernia repair at a VA medical center.

BACKGROUND: BMI is a risk factor for recurrence and post-operative complications in both open and laparoscopic totally extraperitoneal approach (TEP) repair. Robotic surgery using the transabdominal preperitoneal approach (TAPP) is a safe and viable option for inguinal hernia repair (IHR). The objective of this study is to determine how difference in BMI influences rate of operative time, complications, and rate of recurrence in a robotic TAPP IHR. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent robotic inguinal hernia repair between 2012 and 2019 at a Veterans Health Administration facility (N = 304). The operating time, outcomes, and overall morbidity and mortality for robotic IHR were compared between three different BMI Groups. These groups were divided into: "Underweight/Normal Weight" (BMI < 25) n = 102, "Pre-Obese" (BMI 25-29.9) n = 120, and "Obese" (BMI 30 +) n = 82. RESULTS: The average operating time of a bilateral IHR by BMI group was 83.5, 98.4, and 97.8 min for BMIs < 25, 25-29.9, and 30 +, respectively. Operating time was lower in the Underweight/Normal BMI group compared to the Pre-Obese group (p = 0.006) as well as the Obese group (p = 0.001). For unilateral repair, the average operation length by group was 65.2, 70.9, and 85.6 min for BMIs < 25, 25-29.9, and 30 +, respectively, demonstrating an increased time for Obese compared to Underweight/Normal BMI (p = 0.001) and for Obese compared to Pre-Obese (p = 0.01). Demographic/comorbidity variables were not significantly different, except for a higher percentage of white patients in the Underweight/Normal BMI group compared to the Pre-Obese and Obese groups (p = 0.02 and p = 0.0003). There was no significant difference in complications or recurrence. CONCLUSION: BMI has a significant impact on the operating time of both unilateral and bilateral robotic hernia repair. Despite this increased operative time, BMI group did not differ significantly in postoperative outcomes or in recurrence rates.

Comparison of surgical fixation and non-operative management in patients with traumatic sternum fracture.

PURPOSE: The incidence of sternal fractures in blunt trauma patients lies between 3 and 7%. The role, timing and indications for surgical management are not well delineated and remain controversial for patients undergoing surgical stabilization of sternum fracture (SSSF). We sought to identify the national rate of SSSF in patients with a sternum fracture hypothesizing patients undergoing SSSF will have a decreased rate of mortality and complications. METHODS: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2015-2016) was queried for patients with sternum fracture. Propensity scores were calculated to match patients undergoing SSSF to patients managed non-operatively in a 1:2 ratio using demographic data. RESULTS: From 9460 patients with a sternum fracture, 114 (1.2%) underwent SSSF. After propensity-matching, 112 SSSF patients were compared to 224 patients undergoing non-operative management (NOM). There were no differences in matched characteristics (all p > 0.05). Compared to patients undergoing NOM, patients undergoing SSSF had an increased median length of stay (LOS) (16 vs. 7 days, p < 0.001), ICU LOS (9.5 vs. 5.5 days, p = 0.016) and ventilator days (8 vs. 5, p = 0.035). The SSSF group had a similar rate of ARDS (2.7% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.80), pneumonia (1.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.48) and unplanned intubation (8.9% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.29) but a lower mortality rate (2.7% vs. 11.2%, p = 0.008). CONCLUSION: Just over 1% of patients with sternum fracture underwent SSSF in a national analysis. Patients undergoing SSSF had an increased LOS and similar rate of all measured pulmonary complications, however a lower mortality rate compared to patients managed non-operatively.

An increasing trend in geriatric trauma patients undergoing surgical stabilization of rib fractures.

PURPOSE: The proportion of geriatric trauma patients (GTPs) (age ≥ 65 years old) with chest wall injury undergoing surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) nationally is unknown. We hypothesize a growing trend of GTPs undergoing SSRF, and sought to evaluate risk of respiratory complications and mortality for GTPs compared to younger adults (18-64 years old) undergoing SSRF. METHODS: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for patients with rib fracture(s) who underwent SSRF. GTPs were compared to younger adults. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: From 21,517 patients undergoing SSRF, 3,001 (16.2%) were GTPs. Of all patients undergoing SSRF in 2010, 10.6% occurred on GTPs increasing to 17.9% in 2016 (p < 0.001) with a geometric-mean-annual increase of 11.5%. GTPs had a lower median injury severity score (18 vs. 22, p < 0.001), but had a higher rate of mortality (4.7% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001). After controlling for covariates, GTPs had an increased associated risk of mortality (OR 4.80, CI 3.62-6.36, p < 0.001). On a separate multivariate analysis for all trauma patients with isolated chest Abbreviated Injury Scale 3, GTPs were associated with a similar four-fold risk of mortality (OR 4.21, CI 1.98-6.32, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Spanning 7 years of data, the proportion of GTPs undergoing SSRF increased by over 7%. Although GTPs undergoing SSRF had lesser injuries, their risk of mortality was four times higher than other adult trauma patients undergoing SSRF, which was similar to their increased background risk of mortality. Ultimately, SSRF in GTPs should be considered on an individualized basis with careful attention to risk-benefit ratio.

Head Over Wheels: Traumatic Head and Neck Injuries Secondary to Mountain Biking.

OBJECTIVES: The popularity of mountain biking (MTB) in the United States has risen in recent years. We sought to identify the prevalence and distribution of MTB associated head and neck injuries presenting to emergency departments across the U.S. and identify risk factors for hospital admission in this patient population. METHODS: The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) was queried for MTB related injuries of the head and neck from 2009 to 2018, with analysis for incidence, age, gender, anatomic site, and diagnoses. RESULTS: A total of 486 cases were identified, corresponding to an estimated 18 952 head and neck MTB related ED visits. Patients were predominantly male (80.7%) and white (69.8%) with a median age of 35 years (interquartile range, 21-46 years). A majority (88.4%) of patients were released from the ED, but a significant proportion of patients were admitted (9.2%) or transferred (1.2%). The most common facial fractures were facial/not specified (35%), nasal bone (29%), mandible (15%), orbit (12%), and zygomaxillary complex (9%). The greatest predictors of hospital admission/transfer were injury to the mouth or neck and avulsion-type injury (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: MTB results in a significant number of traumatic head and neck injuries nationwide. Patients are primarily adult, white males. The majority of injuries result in discharge from the ED, however a small amount of these patients experience significant morbidity necessitating hospital admission. Understanding the distribution of MTB head and neck injuries may aid in the clinical evaluation of these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

No difference in mortality between level I and level II trauma centers performing surgical stabilization of rib fracture.

BACKGROUND: A comparison of outcomes between Level I (LI) and Level II (LII) Trauma Centers (TCs) performing surgical stabilization of rib fracture (SSRF) has not been well described. We sought to compare risk of mortality for patients undergoing SSRF between LI and LII TCs. METHODS: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program was queried for patients presenting with rib fracture to LI or LII TCs from 2010 to 2015. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: 14,046 (7.1%) of 199,020 patients with rib fractures underwent SSRF. SSRF increased from 1304 in 2010 to 3489 in 2015: a geometric mean annual increase of 22%. LI TCs demonstrated a mortality incidence of 1.6% while LII TCs demonstrated a mortality incidence of 1.5% (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in risk of mortality after SSRF between LI and LII TCs (odds ratio 1.12, confidence interval 0.79-1.59, p-value 0.529). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing SSRF at LI and LII TCs have no significant difference in risk of mortality. Additionally, there is an annually growing trend across all centers in SSRF performed both for flail and non-flail segments.

Comparison of Nonoperative and Operative Management of Traumatic Penetrating Internal Jugular Vein Injury.

BACKGROUND: Small case series have suggested that selective nonoperative management (NOM) of penetrating internal jugular vein (IJV) injuries is safe and feasible in select patients lacking "hard signs" mandating exploration. Therefore, we sought to compare NOM to operative management (OM) of penetrating IJV injury, hypothesizing that both strategies have similar patient outcomes and mortality when patients are appropriately selected. METHODS: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2013-2016) was queried for patients with penetrating IJV injury with an abbreviated injury scale score of the neck ≥3. Demographics and patient outcomes were compared between patients undergoing NOM and patients undergoing OM, followed by a multivariable logistic regression model to analyze the risk of mortality. RESULTS: A penetrating IJV injury was identified in 188 (0.01%) patients meeting inclusion criteria, and OM was performed in 124 (66.0%) patients, whereas 64 (34.0%) patients underwent NOM. Although the OM group had a higher rate of pneumothorax (8.9% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.01), there was no difference in any other concomitant injuries or demographic data (all P > 0.05). The OM group had a higher rate of ventilator days (3 vs. 2 days, P = 0.01) but no other significant differences in morbidity or mortality (P > 0.05). After controlling for covariates, OM was associated with similar risk of mortality compared with NOM of patients with penetrating IJV injury (odds ratio 1.05, confidence interval 0.23-4.83, P = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: The NOM of penetrating IJV injuries is associated with similar risk of morbidity and mortality compared with OM, suggesting that NOM may be used in appropriately selected patients. Future research is needed to determine the ideal patients suited for NOM and to identify risk factors and outcomes associated with failure of NOM.

Intracranial pressure monitors associated with increased venous thromboembolism in severe traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of intracranial pressure monitors (ICPMs) has not been consistently shown to improve mortality in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). A single-center analysis concluded that venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis (CP) posed no significant bleeding risk in patients following ICPM implementation; however, there is still debate about the optimal use and timing of CP in patients with ICPMs for fear of worsening intracranial hemorrhage. We hypothesized that ICPM use is associated with increased time to VTE CP and thus increased VTE in patients with severe TBI. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was performed to compare severe TBI patients with and without ICPMs. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was completed. RESULTS: From 35,673 patients with severe TBI, 12,487 (35%) had an ICPM. Those with ICPMs had a higher rate of VTE CP (64.3% vs. 49.4%, p < 0.001) but a longer median time to CP initiation (5 vs. 4 days, p < 0.001) as well as a longer hospital length of stay (LOS) (18 vs. 9 days, p < 0.001) compared to those without ICPMs. After adjusting for covariates, ICPM use was found to be associated with a higher risk of VTE (9.2% vs 4.3%, OR = 1.75, CI = 1.42-2.15, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients without ICPMs, those with ICPMs had a longer delay to initiation of CP leading to an increase in VTE. In addition, there was a nearly two-fold higher associated risk for VTE in patients with ICPMs even when controlling for known VTE risk factors. Improved adherence to initiation of CP in the setting of ICPMs may help decrease the associated risk of VTE with ICPMs.