An Abdominal Seat Belt Sign is Associated With Similar Incidence of Hollow Viscus Injury but Increased In-Hospital Mortality in Older Adult Trauma Patients: A PCSA Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: The abdominal seat belt sign (SBS) is associated with an increased risk of hollow viscus injury (HVI). Older age is associated with worse outcomes in trauma patients. Thus, older trauma patients ≥65 years of age (OTPs) may be at an increased risk of HVI with abdominal SBS. Therefore, we hypothesized an increased incidence of HVI and mortality for OTPs vs younger trauma patients (YTPs) with abdominal SBS. STUDY DESIGN: This post hoc analysis of a multi-institutional, prospective, observational study (8/2020-10/2021) included patients >18 years old with an abdominal SBS who underwent abdominal computed tomography (CT) imaging. Older trauma patients were compared to YTPs (18-64 years old) with bivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of the 754 patients included in this study from nine level-1 trauma centers, there were 110 (14.6%) OTPs and 644 (85.4%) YTPs. Older trauma patients were older (mean 75.3 vs 35.8 years old, P < .01) and had a higher mean Injury Severity Score (10.8 vs 9.0, P = .02). However, YTPs had an increased abdominal abbreviated-injury scale score (2.01 vs 1.63, P = .02). On CT imaging, OTPs less commonly had intraabdominal free fluid (21.7% vs 11.9%, P = .02) despite a similar rate of abdominal soft tissue contusion (P > .05). Older trauma patients also had a statistically similar rate of HVI vs YTPs (5.5% vs 9.8%, P = .15). Despite this, OTPs had increased mortality (5.5% vs 1.1%, P < .01) and length of stay (LOS) (5.9 vs 4.9 days P < .01). CONCLUSION: Despite a similar rate of HVI, OTPs with an abdominal SBS had an increased rate of mortality and LOS. This suggests the need for heightened vigilance when caring for OTPs with abdominal SBS.

Outcomes of severely injured pregnant trauma patients: a multicenter analysis.

Nearly 10% of pregnant women suffer traumatic injury. Clinical outcomes for pregnant trauma patients (PTPs) with severe injuries have not been well studied. We sought to describe outcomes for PTPs presenting with severe injuries, hypothesizing that PTPs with severe injuries will have higher rates of complications and mortality compared to less injured PTPs. A post-hoc analysis of a multi-institutional retrospective study at 12 Level-I/II trauma centers was performed. Patients were stratified into severely injured (injury severity score [ISS] > 15) and not severely injured (ISS < 15) and compared with bivariate analyses. From 950 patients, 32 (3.4%) had severe injuries. Compared to non-severely injured PTPs, severely injured PTPs were of similar maternal age but had younger gestational age (21 vs 26 weeks, p = 0.009). Penetrating trauma was more common in the severely injured cohort (15.6% vs 1.4%, p < 0.001). The severely injured cohort more often underwent an operation (68.8% vs 3.8%, p < 0.001), including a hysterectomy (6.3% vs 0.3%, p < 0.001). The severely injured group had higher rates of complications (34.4% vs 0.9%, p < 0.001), mortality (15.6% vs 0.1%, p < 0.001), a higher rate of fetal delivery (37.5% vs. 6.0%, p < 0.001) and resuscitative hysterotomy (9.4% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). Only approximately 3% of PTPs were severely injured. However, severely injured PTPs had a nearly 40% rate of fetal delivery as well as increased complications and mortality. This included a resuscitative hysterotomy rate of nearly 10%. Significant vigilance must remain when caring for this population.

Predictors of fetal delivery in pregnant trauma patients: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant trauma patients (PTPs) undergo observation and fetal monitoring following trauma due to possible fetal delivery (FD) or adverse outcome. There is a paucity of data on PTP outcomes, especially related to risk factors for FD. We aimed to identify predictors of posttraumatic FD in potentially viable pregnancies. METHODS: All PTPs (≥18 years) with ≥24-weeks gestational age were included in this multicenter retrospective study at 12 Level-I and II trauma centers between 2016 and 2021. Pregnant trauma patients who underwent FD ((+) FD) were compared to those who did not deliver ((-) FD) during the index hospitalization. Univariate analyses and multivariable logistic regression were performed to identify predictors of FD. RESULTS: Of 591 PTPs, 63 (10.7%) underwent FD, with 4 (6.3%) maternal deaths. The (+) FD group was similar in maternal age (27 vs. 28 years, p = 0.310) but had older gestational age (37 vs. 30 weeks, p < 0.001) and higher mean injury severity score (7.0 vs. 1.5, p < 0.001) compared with the (-) FD group. The (+) FD group had higher rates of vaginal bleeding (6.3% vs. 1.1%, p = 0.002), uterine contractions (46% vs. 23.5%, p < 0.001), and abnormal fetal heart tracing (54.7% vs. 14.6%, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, independent predictors for (+) FD included abdominal injury (odds ratio [OR], 4.07; confidence interval [CI], 1.11-15.02; p = 0.035), gestational age (OR, 1.68 per week ≥24 weeks; CI, 1.44-1.95; p < 0.001), abnormal FHT (OR, 12.72; CI, 5.19-31.17; p < 0.001), and premature rupture of membranes (OR, 35.97; CI, 7.28-177.74; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The FD rate was approximately 10% for PTPs with viable fetal gestational age. Independent risk factors for (+) FD included maternal and fetal factors, many of which are available on initial trauma bay evaluation. These risk factors may help predict FD in the trauma setting and shape future guidelines regarding the recommended observation of PTPs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Significant variation in computed tomography imaging of pregnant trauma patients: a retrospective multicenter study.

PURPOSE: Following motor vehicle collisions (MVCs), patients often undergo extensive computed tomography (CT) imaging. However, pregnant trauma patients (PTPs) represent a unique population where the risk of fetal radiation may supersede the benefits of liberal CT imaging. This study sought to evaluate imaging practices for PTPs, hypothesizing variability in CT imaging among trauma centers. If demonstrated, this might suggest the need to develop specific guidelines to standardize practice. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective study (2016-2021) was performed at 12 Level-I/II trauma centers. Adult (≥18 years old) PTPs involved in MVCs were included, with no patients excluded. The primary outcome was the frequency of CT. Chi-square tests were used to compare categorical variables, and ANOVA was used to compare the means of normally distributed continuous variables. RESULTS: A total of 729 PTPs sustained MVCs (73% at high speed of ≥ 25 miles per hour). Most patients were mildly injured but a small variation of injury severity score (range 1.1-4.6, p < 0.001) among centers was observed. There was a variation of imaging rates for CT head (range 11.8-62.5%, p < 0.001), cervical spine (11.8-75%, p < 0.001), chest (4.4-50.2%, p < 0.001), and abdomen/pelvis (0-57.3%, p < 0.001). In high-speed MVCs, there was variation for CT head (12.5-64.3%, p < 0.001), cervical spine (16.7-75%, p < 0.001), chest (5.9-83.3%, p < 0.001), and abdomen/pelvis (0-60%, p < 0.001). There was no difference in mortality (0-2.9%, p =0.19). CONCLUSION: Significant variability of CT imaging in PTPs after MVCs was demonstrated across 12 trauma centers, supporting the need for standardization of CT imaging for PTPs to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure while ensuring optimal injury identification is achieved.

Development and Validation of a Novel Hollow Viscus Injury Prediction Score for Abdominal Seatbelt Sign: A Pacific Coast Surgical Association Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND: High-quality CT can exclude hollow viscus injury (HVI) in patients with abdominal seatbelt sign (SBS) but performs poorly at identifying HVI. Delay in diagnosis of HVI has significant consequences necessitating timely identification. STUDY DESIGN: This multicenter, prospective observational study conducted at 9 trauma centers between August 2020 and October 2021 included adult trauma patients with abdominal SBS who underwent abdominal CT before surgery. HVI was determined intraoperatively and physiologic, examination, laboratory, and imaging findings were collected. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator- and probit regression-selected predictor variables and coefficients were used to assign integer points for the HVI score. Validation was performed by comparing the area under receiver operating curves (AUROC). RESULTS: Analysis included 473 in the development set and 203 in the validation set. The HVI score includes initial systolic blood pressure <110 mmHg, abdominal tenderness, guarding, and select abdominal CT findings. The derivation set has an AUROC of 0.96, and the validation set has an AUROC of 0.91. The HVI score ranges from 0 to 17 with score 0 to 5 having an HVI risk of 0.03% to 5.36%, 6 to 9 having a risk of 10.65% to 44.1%, and 10 to 17 having a risk of 58.59% to 99.72%. CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study developed and validated a novel HVI score incorporating readily available physiologic, examination, and CT findings to risk stratify patients with an abdominal SBS. The HVI score can be used to guide decisions regarding management of a patient with an abdominal SBS and suspected HVI.

Outcomes for advanced aged (35 and older) versus younger aged pregnant trauma patients: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Effects of advanced maternal age (AMA) pregnancies (defined as ≥35 years) on pregnant trauma patients (PTPs) are unknown. This study compared AMA versus younger PTPs, hypothesizing AMA PTPs have increased risk of fetal delivery (FD). METHODS: A retrospective (2016-2021) multicenter study included all PTPs. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate risk of FD after trauma. RESULTS: A total of 950 PTPs were included. Both cohorts had similar gestational age and injury severity scores. The AMA group had increased injuries to the pancreas, bladder, and stomach (p < 0.05). There was no difference in rate or associated risk of FD between cohorts (5.3% vs. 11.4%; OR 0.59, CI 0.19-1.88, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared to their younger counterparts, some intra-abdominal injuries (pancreas, bladder, and stomach) were more common among AMA PTPs. However, there was no difference in rate or associated risk of FD in AMA PTPs, thus they do not require increased observation.

Inhalation Injury: Which Providers Can Assess the Need for Intubation?

Previous studies have suggested that many burn patients undergo unnecessary intubation due to concern for inhalation injury. We hypothesized that burn surgeons would intubate burn patients at a lower rate than non-burn acute care surgeons (ACSs). We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted to an American Burn Association-verified burn center who presented emergently following burn injury from June 2015 to December 2021. Patients excluded include polytrauma patients, isolated friction burns, and patients intubated prior to hospital arrival. Our primary outcome was intubation rates between burn and non-burn ACSs. 388 patients met inclusion criteria. 240 (62%) patients were evaluated by a burn provider and 148 (38%) were evaluated by a non-burn provider; the groups were well-matched. In total, 73 (19%) of patients underwent intubation. There was no difference in the rate of emergent intubation, diagnosis of inhalation injury on bronchoscopy, time to extubation, or incidence of extubation within 48 hours between burn and non-burn ACSs. We found no difference between burn and non-burn ACSs in the airway evaluation and management of burn patients. Surgical providers with acute care surgery backgrounds and Advanced Trauma Life Support training are well-equipped for initial airway management in burn patients. Further studies should seek to compare other types of provider groups to identify opportunities for intervention and education in preventing unnecessary intubations.

Cross-Border Antibiotic Resistance Patterns in Burn Patients.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a growing problem worldwide, with differences in regional resistance patterns partially driven by local variance in antibiotic stewardship. Trauma patients transferring from Mexico have more AMR than those injured in the United States; we hypothesized a similar pattern would be present for burn patients. Patients and Methods: The registry of an American Burn Association (ABA)-verified burn center was queried for all admissions for burn injury January 2015 through December 2019 with hospital length-of-stay (LOS) longer than seven days. Patients were divided into two groups based upon burn location: United States (USA) or Mexico (MEX). All bacterial infections were analyzed. Results: A total of 73 MEX and 826 USA patients were included. Patients had a similar mean age (40.4 years MEX vs. 42.2 USA) and gender distribution (69.6% male vs. 64.4%). The MEX patients had larger median percent total body surface area burned (%TBSA; 11.1% vs. 4.3%; p ≤ 0.001) and longer hospital LOS (18.0 vs. 13.0 days; p = 0.028). The MEX patients more often had respiratory infections (16.4% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.046), whereas rates of other infections were similar. The MEX patients had higher rates of any resistant organism (47.2% of organisms MEX vs. 28.1% USA; p = 0.013), and were more likely to have resistant infections on univariable analysis; however, on multivariable analysis country of burn was no longer significant. Conclusions: Antimicrobial resistance is more common in burn patients initially burned in Mexico than those burned in the United States, but location was not a predictor of resistance compared to other traditional burn-related factors. Continuing to monitor for AMR regardless of country of burn remains critical.

Excluding Hollow Viscus Injury for Abdominal Seat Belt Sign Using Computed Tomography.

Importance: Abdominal seat belt sign (SBS) has historically entailed admission and observation because of the diagnostic limitations of computed tomography (CT) imaging and high rates of hollow viscus injury (HVI). Recent single-institution, observational studies have questioned the utility of this practice. Objective: To evaluate whether a negative CT scan can safely predict the absence of HVI in the setting of an abdominal SBS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, observational cohort study was conducted in 9 level I trauma centers between August 2020 and October 2021 and included adult trauma patients with abdominal SBS. Exposures: Inclusion in the study required abdominal CT as part of the initial trauma evaluation and before any surgical intervention, if performed. Results of CT scans were considered positive if they revealed any of the following: abdominal wall soft tissue contusion, free fluid, bowel wall thickening, mesenteric stranding, mesenteric hematoma, bowel dilation, pneumatosis, or pneumoperitoneum. Main Outcomes and Measures: Presence of HVI diagnosed at the time of operative intervention. Results: A total of 754 patients with abdominal SBS had an HVI prevalence of 9.2% (n = 69), with only 1 patient with HVI (0.1%) having a negative CT (ie, none of the 8 a priori CT findings). On bivariate analysis comparing patients with and without HVI, there were significant associations between each of the individual CT scan findings and the presence of HVI. The strongest association was found with the presence of free fluid, with a more than 40-fold increase in the likelihood of HVI (odds ratio [OR], 42.68; 95% CI, 20.48-88.94; P < .001). The presence of free fluid also served as the most effective binary classifier for presence of HVI (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve [AUC], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.83-0.91). There was also an association between a negative CT scan and the absence of HVI (OR, 41.09; 95% CI, 9.01-727.69; P < .001; AUC, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.66-0.70). Conclusions and Relevance: The prevalence of HVI among patients with an abdominal SBS and negative findings on CT is extremely low, if not zero. The practice of admitting and observing all patients with abdominal SBS should be reconsidered when a high-quality CT scan is negative, which may lead to significant resource and cost savings.

Not so FAST-Chest ultrasound underdiagnoses traumatic pneumothorax.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography for trauma is a widely used tool in the initial evaluation of trauma patients with complete ultrasonography of trauma (CUST) demonstrating equivalence to computed tomography (CT) for detecting clinically significant abdominal hemorrhage. Initial reports demonstrated high sensitivity of CUST for the bedside diagnosis of pneumothorax. We hypothesized that the sensitivity of CUST would be greater than initial supine chest radiograph (CXR) for detecting pneumothorax. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with pneumothorax from 2018 through 2020 at a Level I trauma center was performed. Patients included had routine supine CXR and CUST performed prior to intervention as well as confirmatory CT imaging. All CUST were performed during the initial evaluation in the trauma bay by a registered sonographer. All imaging was evaluated by an attending radiologist. Subgroup analysis was performed after excluding occult pneumothorax. Immediate tube thoracostomy was defined as tube placement with confirmatory CXR within 8 hours of admission. RESULTS: There were 568 patients screened with a diagnosis of pneumothorax, identifying 362 patients with a confirmed pneumothorax in addition to CXR, CUST, and confirmatory CT imaging. The population was 83% male, had a mean age of 45 years, with 85% presenting due to blunt trauma. Sensitivity of CXR for detecting pneumothorax was 43%, while the sensitivity of CUST was 35%. After removal of occult pneumothorax (n = 171), CXR was 78% sensitive, while CUST was 65% sensitive (p < 0.01). In this subgroup, CUST had a false-negative rate of 36% (n = 62). Of those patients with a false-negative CUST, 50% (n = 31) underwent tube thoracostomy, with 85% requiring immediate placement. CONCLUSION: Complete ultrasonography of trauma performed on initial trauma evaluation had lower sensitivity than CXR for identification of pneumothorax including clinically significant pneumothorax requiring tube thoracostomy. Using CUST as the primary imaging modality in the initial evaluation of chest trauma should be considered with caution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test study, Level IV.

Readmission after splenic salvage: How real is the risk?

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhage due to delayed splenic rupture is a potentially fatal complication of nonoperative management of splenic injuries. Suboptimal postdischarge follow-up has made measuring the incidence of failed splenic salvage challenging. We hypothesized that readmission after splenic salvage is rare; however, readmissions for splenic conditions would be associated with a high rate of splenectomy. METHODS: The National Readmission Database for 2016 and 2017 was queried for trauma admissions with the International Classification of Diseases 10th revision codes for splenic injury. Patients with missing discharge disposition, discharge to a short-term hospital, death during index admission, or admitted in December were excluded. The primary endpoint was nonelective 30-day readmission for splenic diagnoses after nonoperative management during the index admission. Outcomes collected included transfusions, complications, interventions at readmission, and mortality. RESULTS: There were 22,736 patients admitted for a traumatic splenic injury; 15,596 (68.6%) underwent no intervention, 2,261 (9.9%) were treated with embolization only, and 4,509 (19.8%) underwent splenectomy. The overall 30-day readmission rate was 8.4%, whereas the spleen-related readmission rate was 2.0%. For those treated with embolization or no intervention, the spleen-related 30-day readmission rate was 2.4%, with the majority (69.4%) occurring within 7 days of discharge. The most common complications were pleural effusion (23.0%), sepsis (4.4%), splenic abscess (3.9%), and splenic infarct (3.0%). Those patients readmitted for spleen-related diagnoses after undergoing splenic salvage during the index admission had a 22.3% rate of splenectomy and mortality of 1.6%. CONCLUSION: Readmission after splenic salvage is rare, with the majority presenting within 1 week of discharge. However, of those readmitted for spleen injury-related diagnoses there was a high rate of splenectomy. Patients managed with splenic salvage should be counseled on the risk of potential failure and need for readmission and operation after discharge.