A Prospective Multicenter Comparison of Trauma and Injury Severity Score, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status, and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Calculator's Ability to Predict Operative Trauma Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Trauma outcome prediction models have traditionally relied upon patient injury and physiologic data (eg, Trauma and Injury Severity Score [TRISS]) without accounting for comorbidities. We sought to prospectively evaluate the role of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) score and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk-Calculator (NSQIP-SRC), which are measurements of comorbidities, in the prediction of trauma outcomes, hypothesizing that they will improve the predictive ability for mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications compared to TRISS alone in trauma patients undergoing surgery within 24 hours. METHODS: A prospective, observational multicenter study (9/2018-2/2020) of trauma patients ≥18 years undergoing operation within 24 hours of admission was performed. Multiple logistic regression was used to create models predicting mortality utilizing the variables within TRISS, ASA-PS, and NSQIP-SRC, respectively. Linear regression was used to create models predicting LOS and negative binomial regression to create models predicting complications. RESULTS: From 4 level I trauma centers, 1213 patients were included. The Brier Score for each model predicting mortality was found to improve accuracy in the following order: 0.0370 for ASA-PS, 0.0355 for NSQIP-SRC, 0.0301 for TRISS, 0.0291 for TRISS+ASA-PS, and 0.0234 for TRISS+NSQIP-SRC. However, when comparing TRISS alone to TRISS+ASA-PS (P = .082) and TRISS+NSQIP-SRC (P = .394), there was no significant improvement in mortality prediction. NSQIP-SRC more accurately predicted both LOS and complications compared to TRISS and ASA-PS. CONCLUSIONS: TRISS predicts mortality better than ASA-PS and NSQIP-SRC in trauma patients undergoing surgery within 24 hours. The TRISS mortality predictive ability is not improved when combined with ASA-PS or NSQIP-SRC. However, NSQIP-SRC was the most accurate predictor of LOS and complications.

Comparison of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator and Trauma and Injury Severity Score Risk Assessment Tools in Predicting Outcomes in High-Risk Operative Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) uses anatomic/physiologic variables to predict outcomes. The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator (NSQIP-SRC) includes functional status and comorbidities. It is unclear which of these tools is superior for high-risk trauma patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) class IV or V). This study compares risk prediction of TRISS and NSQIP-SRC for mortality, length of stay (LOS), and complications for high-risk operative trauma patients. METHODS: This is a prospective study of high-risk (ASA-PS IV or V) trauma patients (≥18 years-old) undergoing surgery at 4 trauma centers. We compared TRISS vs NSQIP-SRC vs NSQIP-SRC + TRISS for ability to predict mortality, LOS, and complications using linear, logistic, and negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Of 284 patients, 48 (16.9%) died. The median LOS was 16 days and number of complications was 1. TRISS + NSQIP-SRC best predicted mortality (AUROC: .877 vs .723 vs .843, P = .0018) and number of complications (pseudo-R2/median error (ME) 5.26%/1.15 vs 3.39%/1.33 vs 2.07%/1.41, P < .001) compared to NSQIP-SRC or TRISS, but there was no difference between TRISS + NSQIP-SRC and NSQIP-SRC with LOS prediction (P = .43). DISCUSSION: For high-risk operative trauma patients, TRISS + NSQIP-SRC performed better at predicting mortality and number of complications compared to NSQIP-SRC or TRISS alone but similar to NSQIP-SRC alone for LOS. Thus, future risk prediction and comparisons across trauma centers for high-risk operative trauma patients should include a combination of anatomic/physiologic data, comorbidities, and functional status.

Comparison of National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator, Trauma and Injury Severity Score, and American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status to predict operative trauma mortality in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: The Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) uses anatomical and physiologic variables to predict mortality. Elderly (65 years or older) trauma patients have increased mortality and morbidity for a given TRISS, in part because of functional status and comorbidities. These factors are incorporated into the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator (NSQIP-SRC). We hypothesized scoring tools using comorbidities and functional status to be superior at predicting mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), and complications in elderly trauma patients undergoing operation. METHODS: Four level I trauma centers prospectively collected data on elderly trauma patients undergoing surgery within 24 hours of admission. Using logistic regression, five scoring models were compared: ASA-PS, NSQIP-SRC, TRISS, TRISS-ASA-PS, and TRISS-NSQIP-SRC.Brier scores and area under the receiver operator characteristics curve were calculated to compare mortality prediction. Adjusted R2 and root mean squared error were used to compare LOS and predictive ability for number of complications. RESULTS: From 122 subjects, 9 (7.4%) died, and the average LOS was 12.9 days (range, 1-110 days). National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator was superior to ASA-PS and TRISS at predicting mortality (area under the receiver operator characteristics curve, 0.978 vs. 0.768 vs. 0.903; p = 0.007). Furthermore, NSQIP-SRC was more accurate predicting LOS (R2, 25.9% vs. 13.3% vs. 20.5%) and complications (R2, 34.0% vs. 22.6% vs. 29.4%) compared with TRISS and ASA-PS. Adding TRISS to NSQIP-SRC improved predictive ability compared with NSQIP-SRC alone for complications (R2, 35.5% vs. 34.0%; p = 0.046). However, adding ASA-PS or TRISS to NSQIP-SRC did not improve the predictive ability for mortality or LOS. CONCLUSION: The NSQIP-SRC, which includes comorbidities and functional status, had superior ability to predict mortality, LOS, and complications compared with TRISS alone in elderly trauma patients undergoing surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

The diagnostic dilemma of shotgun injuries.

PURPOSE: Shotgun wounds pose diagnostic challenges due to variable fragment penetration and degradation of CT images. This study compared epidemiology and outcomes between shotgun wounds and gunshot wounds (GSWs), and defined the diagnostic capabilities of CT scan after shotgun wounds. METHODS: All patients presenting to our Level I trauma center after ballistic injury (01/2008-03/2017) were included. Study groups were defined by shotgun vs GSW. Demographics, clinical data, and outcomes were compared using univariate analysis. The diagnostic yield of CT scan after shotgun wounds was calculated. RESULTS: Of 3177 patients, 3126 (98%) were injured by GSWs and 51 (2%) by shotguns. Of the shotgun-injured patients, 5 (10%) had superficial wounds, 8 (16%) underwent emergency surgery, and 38 (74%) underwent CT scan [10 (26%) were then brought to OR and 28 (74%) were managed nonoperatively]. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of CT scan after shotgun wounds were 0.93, 0.96, 0.93, and 0.97. There was one false-negative CT scan, which missed a hollow viscus injury. There was one false-positive CT scan, which suggested a hollow viscus injury, although none was found on exploratory laparotomy. Patients injured by shotgun required fewer cavitary explorations (25% vs 59%, p = 0.006) but more soft tissue (21% vs 8%, p = 0.013) and extremity vascular surgeries (86% vs 9%, p < 0.001) than GSW-injured patients. CONCLUSIONS: Shotgun injuries are far less frequent than GSWs but generally follow the same diagnostic and therapeutic considerations. Clinicians must be aware of the pitfalls of CT scanning after shotgun injuries, which can be falsely positive or falsely negative. A high index of suspicion for injury and a period of observation after negative CT scan may, therefore, be prudent.

Trauma Team Activation at a Level I Trauma Center in Southern California: Time of Day Matters.

The ACS Committee on Trauma specifies prehospital criteria that trigger trauma team activation (TTA). The study aims to define the relationship between TTA and time of day, mechanism of injury, and need for operative intervention. All trauma patients presenting to LAC+USC (January 2008-July 2018) after triggering TTA were screened. Patients were excluded if time of ED arrival was undocumented. Demographics, injury data, and outcomes were analyzed. After exclusions (<1%), 54,826 patients were enrolled. The median age was 35 [IQR 23-53]. The median Injury Severity Score was 4 [1-10]. The most common mechanisms of injury were falls (n = 14,166; 31%), auto versus pedestrian collisions (n = 11,921; 26%), and motor vehicle collisions (n = 11,024; 24%). Penetrating trauma comprised 16 per cent (n = 8,686). The busiest hour for TTAs was 19:00 to 20:00, although penetrating trauma was most common between 23:00 and 01:00. Emergent surgical intervention in absolute numbers was most frequent between 20:00 and 01:00. As a proportion of the number of TTAs per hour, emergent operative intervention was most frequent between 23:00 and 06:00. In conclusion, the volume of TTAs and the triggering mechanism of injury vary significantly by time of day. The need for operative intervention is highest overnight. This information can be used to help increase hospital preparedness and allocate resources accordingly.

Comparison of a standardized negative pressure wound therapy protocol after midline celiotomy to primary skin closure and traditional open wound vacuum-assisted closure management.

A negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) protocol using Hydrofera Blue® bacteriostatic foam wicks and silver-impregnated foam overlay to close midline skin incisions after emergency celiotomy was compared to primary skin closure only and traditional open wound vacuum-assisted closure management as part of a quality improvement initiative. This single-institution retrospective cohort study assessed all consecutive emergency celiotomies from July 2013 to June 2014 excluding clean wounds. Included variables were demographics, wound classification, NPWT days, and surgical site occurrences (SSOs). Primary outcome was days of NPWT. Secondary outcomes included SSOs (surgical site infections, fascial dehiscence, return to operating room). Analysis used exact chi-square between categorical variables, Kruskal-Wallis for analysis of variance for ordinal and categorical variables, and Wilcoxon rank sum for total days of NPWT. One hundred fifty-eight patients underwent emergency celiotomy with primary skin closure (n = 51), open NPWT (n = 63), or the NPWT protocol (n = 44). There was no difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score, body mass index, wound classification, or SSO between the three groups. Total NPWT days were reduced in protocol versus open NPWT (median 3 vs 20.5 days, range 3-51 vs 3-405 days, P = 0.001). Primary skin closure and NPWT protocol had fewer patients discharged with NPWT than open NWPT (0% and 14% vs 63.5%, P < 0.0001, odds ratio = 10.7, 95% confidence interval 3.7-35.1). Primary skin closure and NPWT protocol decrease NPWT usage days and maintain low SSOs in emergency midline celiotomy incisions.