General surgeon involvement in the care of patients designated with an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-endorsed ICD-10-CM emergency general surgery diagnosis code in Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND: The current national burden of emergency general surgery (EGS) illnesses and the extent of surgeon involvement in the care of these patients remain largely unknown. To inform needs assessments, research, and education, we sought to: (1) translate previously developed International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes representing EGS conditions to ICD 10th Revision, CM (ICD-10-CM) codes and (2) determine the national burden of and assess surgeon involvement across EGS conditions. METHODS: We converted ICD-9-CM codes to candidate ICD-10-CM codes using General Equivalence Mappings then iteratively refined the code list. We used National Inpatient Sample 2016 to 2017 data to develop a national estimate of the burden of EGS disease. To evaluate surgeon involvement, using Wisconsin Hospital Association discharge data (January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018), we selected adult urgent/emergent encounters with an EGS condition as the principal diagnosis. Surgeon involvement was defined as a surgeon being either the attending provider or procedural physician. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-five ICD-9-CM codes mapped to 1,696 ICD-10-CM codes. The final list contained 985 ICD-10-CM codes. Nationally, there were 2,977,843 adult patient encounters with an ICD-10-CM EGS diagnosis. Of 94,903 EGS patients in the Wisconsin Hospital Association data set, most encounters were inpatient as compared with observation (75,878 [80.0%] vs. 19,025 [20.0%]). There were 57,780 patients (60.9%) that underwent any procedure. Among all Wisconsin EGS patients, most had no surgeon involvement (64.9% [n = 61,616]). Of the seven most common EGS diagnoses, surgeon involvement was highest for appendicitis (96.0%) and biliary tract disease (77.1%). For the other five most common conditions (skin/soft tissue infections, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, intestinal obstruction/ileus, pancreatitis, diverticular disease), surgeons were involved in roughly 20% of patient care episodes. CONCLUSION: Surgeon involvement for EGS conditions ranges from highly likely (appendicitis) to relatively unlikely (skin/soft tissue infections). The wide range in surgeon involvement underscores the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration in the care of EGS patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiological, Level III.

Whole Blood Versus Conventional Blood Component Massive Transfusion Protocol Therapy in Civilian Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: Military data demonstrating an improved survival rate with whole blood (WB) have led to a shift toward the use of WB in civilian trauma. The purpose of this study is to compare a low-titer group O WB (LTOWB) massive transfusion protocol (MTP) to conventional blood component therapy (BCT) MTP in civilian trauma patients. METHODS: Trauma patients 15 years or older who had MTP activations from February 2019 to December 2020 were included. Patients with a LTOWB MTP activation were compared to BCT MTP patients from a historic cohort. RESULTS: 299 patients were identified, 169 received LTOWB and 130 received BCT. There were no differences in age, gender, or injury type. The Injury Severity Score was higher in the BCT group (27 vs 25, P = .006). The LTOWB group had a longer transport time (33 min vs 26 min, P < .001) and a lower arrival temperature (35.8 vs 36.1, P < .001). Other hemodynamic parameters were similar between the groups. The LTOWB group had a lower in-hospital mortality rate compared to the BCT group (19.5% vs 30.0%, P = .035). There were no differences in total transfusion volumes at 4 hours and 24 hours. No differences were seen in transfusion reactions or hospital complications. Multivariable logistic regression identified ISS, age, and 24-hour transfusion volume as predictors of mortality. DISCUSSION: Resuscitating severely injured trauma patient with LTOWB is safe and may be associated with an improved survival.

Avoiding Cribari gridlock 2: The standardized triage assessment tool outperforms the Cribari matrix method in 38 adult and pediatric trauma centers.

OBJECTIVES: The Cribari Matrix Method (CMM) is the current standard to identify over/undertriage but requires manual trauma triage reviews to address its inadequacies. The Standardized Triage Assessment Tool (STAT) partially emulates triage review by combining CMM with the Need For Trauma Intervention, an indicator of major trauma. This study aimed to validate STAT in a multicenter sample. METHODS: Thirty-eight adult and pediatric US trauma centers submitted data for 97,282 encounters. Mixed models estimated the effects of overtriage and undertriage versus appropriate triage on the odds of complication, odds of discharge to a continuing care facility, and differences in length of stay for both CMM and STAT. Significance was assessed at p <0.005. RESULTS: Overtriage (53.49% vs. 30.79%) and undertriage (17.19% vs. 3.55%) rates were notably lower with STAT than with CMM. CMM and STAT had significant associations with all outcomes, with overtriages demonstrating lower injury burdens and undertriages showing higher injury burdens than appropriately triaged patients. STAT indicated significantly stronger associations with outcomes than CMM, except in odds of discharge to continuing care facility among patients who received a full trauma team activation where STAT and CMM were similar. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study strongly indicates STAT safely and accurately flags fewer cases for triage reviews, thereby reducing the subjectivity introduced by manual triage determinations. This may enable better refinement of activation criteria and reduced workload.

Size matters: Computed tomographic measurements of the appendix in emergency department scans.

BACKGROUND: Radiologists use a size cutoff in appendiceal diameter to assist surgeons in diagnosing appendicitis, however, no consensus exists as to the size of a normal adult appendix. We aim to evaluate radial appendiceal diameter on CT in adult patients both with and without appendicitis. METHODS: Retrospective review of adults who underwent abdominal CT was performed. Variables collected include: demographics, BMI, WBC count at presentation, radial diameter of appendix (mm), presence of fat stranding, fecalith, and free fluid. RESULTS: During the study period, 3099 patients underwent CT. The appendix was visualized on 74% of scans. Mean appendiceal diameter was 6.6 mm (±1.7). The appendix was larger in patients with appendicitis (6.6 vs. 11.4; p < 0.0001). Overall appendectomy incidence was 3.2%. Sensitivity and specificity of CT in diagnosing appendicitis in this cohort of patients were 90% and 94%. NPV was 99.5%. CONCLUSION: While appendiceal diameter was larger in patients with appendicitis, >20% of patients without appendicitis had an appendiceal diameter >7 mm. Diameter alone should not be relied upon to diagnose appendicitis.

History and significance of the trauma resuscitation flow sheet.

There is little to no written information in the literature regarding the origin of the trauma flow sheet. This vital document allows programs to evaluate initial processes of trauma care. This information populates the trauma registry and is reviewed in nearly every Trauma Process Improvement and Patient Safety conference when discerning the course of patient care. It is so vital, a scribe is assigned to complete this documentation task for all trauma resuscitations, and there are continual process improvement efforts in trauma centers across the nation to ensure complete and accurate data collection. Indeed, it is the single most important document reviewed by the verification committee when evaluating processes of care at site visits. Trauma surgeons often overlook its importance during resuscitation, as recording remains the domain of the trauma scribe. Yet it is the first document scrutinized when the outcome is less than what is expected. The development of the flow sheet is not a result of any consensus statement, expert work group, or mandate, but a result of organic evolution due to the need for relevant and better data. The purpose of this review is to outline the origin, importance, and critical utility of the trauma flow sheet.

Expanding the scope of quality measurement in surgery to include nonoperative care: Results from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program emergency general surgery pilot.

BACKGROUND: Patients managed nonoperatively have been excluded from risk-adjusted benchmarking programs, including the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP). Consequently, optimal performance evaluation is not possible for specialties like emergency general surgery (EGS) where nonoperative management is common. We developed a multi-institutional EGS clinical data registry within ACS NSQIP that includes patients managed nonoperatively to evaluate variability in nonoperative care across hospitals and identify gaps in performance assessment that occur when only operative cases are considered. METHODS: Using ACS NSQIP infrastructure and methodology, surgical consultations for acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, and small bowel obstruction (SBO) were sampled at 13 hospitals that volunteered to participate in the EGS clinical data registry. Standard NSQIP variables and 16 EGS-specific variables were abstracted with 30-day follow-up. To determine the influence of complications in nonoperative patients, rates of adverse outcomes were identified, and hospitals were ranked by performance with and then without including nonoperative cases. RESULTS: Two thousand ninety-one patients with EGS diagnoses were included, 46.6% with appendicitis, 24.3% with cholecystitis, and 29.1% with SBO. The overall rate of nonoperative management was 27.4%, 6.6% for appendicitis, 16.5% for cholecystitis, and 69.9% for SBO. Despite comprising only 27.4% of patients in the EGS pilot, nonoperative management accounted for 67.7% of deaths, 34.3% of serious morbidities, and 41.8% of hospital readmissions. After adjusting for patient characteristics and hospital diagnosis mix, addition of nonoperative management to hospital performance assessment resulted in 12 of 13 hospitals changing performance rank, with four hospitals changing by three or more positions. CONCLUSION: This study identifies a gap in performance evaluation when nonoperative patients are excluded from surgical quality assessment and demonstrates the feasibility of incorporating nonoperative care into existing surgical quality initiatives. Broadening the scope of hospital performance assessment to include nonoperative management creates an opportunity to improve the care of all surgical patients, not just those who have an operation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management, level IV; Epidemiologic, level III.

Outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy can be successfully performed for uncomplicated appendicitis: A Southwestern Surgical Congress multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Many laparoscopic procedures are now performed on an outpatient basis. We hypothesize laparoscopic appendectomy can be safely performed as an outpatient procedure. METHODS: Seven institutions adopted a previously described outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy protocol for uncomplicated appendicitis. Patients were dismissed unless there was a clinical indication for admission. Patient demographics, success with outpatient management, time of dismissal, morbidity, and readmissions were analyzed. RESULTS: Two hundred six men and one hundred seventy women with a mean age of 35.4 years were included in the protocol. Seventy-eight patients (21%) had pre-existing comorbidities. 299 patients (80%) were managed as outpatients. There were no conversions to open appendectomy. Postoperative morbidity was 5%. The time of patient dismissals was evenly distributed throughout the day and night. Twelve patients (3%) required readmission. Outpatient follow-up occurred in 63% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: An outpatient laparoscopic appendectomy protocol was successfully applied at multiple institutions with low morbidity and low readmission rates. Application of this practice nationally could reduce length of stay and decrease overall health care costs for acute appendicitis.

Tranexamic Acid Use in Prehospital Uncontrolled Hemorrhage.

The use of tranexamic acid (TXA) in the treatment of trauma patients was relatively unexplored until the landmark Clinical Randomisation of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Haemorrhage-2 (CRASH-2) trial in 2010 demonstrated a reduction in mortality with the use of TXA. Although this trial was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study incorporating >20,000 patients, numerous limitations and weaknesses have been described. As a result, additional studies have followed, delineating the potential risks and benefits of TXA administration. A systematic review of the literature to date reveals a mortality benefit of early (ideally <1 hour and no later than 3 hours after injury) TXA administration in the treatment of severely injured trauma patients (systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, heart rate >110). Combined with abundant literature showing a reduction in bleeding in elective surgery, the most significant benefit may be administration of TXA before the patient goes into shock. Those trials that failed to show a mortality benefit of TXA in the treatment of hemorrhagic shock acknowledged that most patients received blood products before TXA administration, thus confounding the results. Although the use of prehospital TXA in the severely injured trauma patient will become more clear with the trauma studies currently underway, the current literature supports the use of prehospital TXA in this high-risk population. We recommend considering a 1 g TXA bolus en route to definitive care in high-risk patients and withholding subsequent doses until hyperfibrinolysis is confirmed by thromboelastography.