Ketamine For Acute Pain After Trauma (KAPT): A Pragmatic, Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Non-narcotic intravenous medications may be a beneficial adjunct to oral multimodal pain regimens (MMPRs) which reduce but do not eliminate opioid exposure and prescribing after trauma. We hypothesized that the addition of a sub-dissociative ketamine infusion (KI) to a standardized oral MMPR reduces inpatient opioid exposure. METHODS: Eligible adult trauma patients admitted to the intermediate or intensive care unit were randomized upon admission to our institutional MMPR per usual care (UC) or UC plus sub-dissociative KI for 24 to 72 hours after arrival. The primary outcome was morphine milligram equivalents per day (MME/d) and secondary outcomes included total MME, discharge with an opioid prescription (OP%), and rates of ketamine side effects. Bayesian posterior probabilities (pp) were calculated using neutral priors. RESULTS: A total of 300 patients were included in the final analysis with 144 randomized to KI and 156 to UC. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The injury severity scores for KI were 19 [14, 29] versus UC 22 [14, 29]. The KI group had a lower rate of long-bone fracture (37% versus 49%) and laparotomy (16% versus 24%). Patients receiving KI had an absolute reduction of 7 MME/day, 96 total MME, and 5% in OP%. Additionally, KI had a relative risk (RR) reduction of 19% in MME/day (RR 0.81 [0.69 - 0.95], pp = 99%), 20% in total MME (RR 0.80 [0.64, 0.99], pp = 98%), and 8% in OP% (RR 0.92 [0.76, 1.11], pp = 81%). The KI group had a higher rate of delirium (11% versus 6%); however, rates of other side effects such as arrythmias and unplanned intubations were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Addition of a sub-dissociative ketamine infusion to an oral MMPR resulted in a decrease in opioid exposure in severely injured patients. Sub-dissociative ketamine infusions can be used as a safe adjunct to decrease opioid exposure in monitored settings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I; Therapeutic/Care Management.

Impact of Intra-Operative Shock and Resuscitation on Surgical Site Infections After Trauma Laparotomy.

Background: Patients undergoing trauma laparotomy experience high rates of surgical site infection (SSI). Although intra-operative shock is a likely contributor to SSI risk, little is known about the relation between shock, intra-operative restoration of physiologic normalcy, and SSI development. Patients and Methods: A retrospective review of trauma patients who underwent emergent definitive laparotomy was performed. Using shock index and base excess at the beginning and end of laparotomy, patients were classified as normal, persistent shock, resuscitated, or new shock. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify predictors of organ/space SSI, superficial/deep SSI, and any SSI. Results: Of 1,191 included patients, 600 (50%) were categorized as no shock, 248 (21%) as resuscitated, 109 (9%) as new shock, and 236 (20%) as persistent shock, with incidence of any SSI as 51 (9%), 28 (11%), 26 (24%), and 32 (14%), respectively. These rates were similar in organ/space and superficial/deep SSIs. On multivariable analysis, resuscitated, new shock, and persistent shock were associated with increased odds of organ/space SSI (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-3.5; p < 0.001) and any SSI (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-3.2; p < 0.001), but no increased risk of superficial/deep SSI (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.6; p = 0.331). Conclusions: Although the trajectory of physiologic status influenced SSI, the presence of shock at any time during trauma laparotomy, regardless of restoration of physiologic normalcy, was associated with increased odds of SSI. Further investigation is warranted to determine the relation between peri-operative shock and SSI in trauma patients.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Surgical Rib Fixation to Nonoperative Management in Severe Chest Wall Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) to nonoperative management in severe chest wall injury. BACKGROUND: SSRF has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with clinical flail chest and respiratory failure. However, the effect of SSRF outcomes in severe chest wall injuries without clinical flail chest is unknown. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial comparing SSRF to nonoperative management in severe chest wall injury, defined as: (1) a radiographic flail segment without clinical flail or (2) ≥5 consecutive rib fractures or (3) any rib fracture with bicortical displacement. Randomization was stratified by the unit of admission as a proxy for injury severity. Primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, ventilator days, opioid exposure, mortality, and incidences of pneumonia and tracheostomy. Quality of life at 1, 3, and 6 months was measured using the EQ-5D-5L survey. RESULTS: Eighty-four patients were randomized in an intention-to-treat analysis (usual care = 42, SSRF = 42). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The numbers of total fractures, displaced fractures, and segmental fractures per patient were also similar, as were the incidences of displaced fractures and radiographic flail segments. Hospital LOS was greater in the SSRF group. ICU LOS and ventilator days were similar. After adjusting for the stratification variable, hospital LOS remained greater in the SSRF group (RR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.17-1.88). ICU LOS (RR: 1.65, 95% CI: 0.94-2.92) and ventilator days (RR: 1.49, 95% CI: 0.61--3.69) remained similar. Subgroup analysis showed that patients with displaced fractures were more likely to have LOS outcomes similar to their usual care counterparts. At 1 month, SSRF patients had greater impairment in mobility [3 (2-3) vs 2 (1-2), P = 0.012] and self-care [2 (1-2) vs 2 (2-3), P = 0.034] dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L. CONCLUSIONS: In severe chest wall injury, even in the absence of clinical flail chest, the majority of patients still reported moderate to extreme pain and impairment of usual physical activity at one month. SSRF increased hospital LOS and did not provide any quality of life benefit for up to 6 months.

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated: An evaluation of futility cut points in massive transfusion.

BACKGROUND: Following COVID and the subsequent blood shortage, several investigators evaluated futility cut points in massive transfusion. We hypothesized that early aggressive use of damage-control resuscitation, including whole blood (WB), would demonstrate that these cut points of futility were significantly underestimating potential survival among patients receiving >50 U of blood in the first 4 hours. METHODS: Adult trauma patients admitted from November 2017 to October 2021 who received emergency-release blood products in prehospital or emergency department setting were included. Deaths within 30 minutes of arrival were excluded. Total blood products were defined as total red blood cell, plasma, and WB in the field and in the first 4 hours after arrival. Patients were first divided into those receiving ≤50 or >50 U of blood in the first 4 hours. We then evaluated patients by whether they received any WB or received only component therapy. Thirty-day survival was evaluated for all included patients. RESULTS: A total of 2,299 patients met the inclusion criteria (2,043 in ≤50 U, 256 in >50 U groups). While there were no differences in age or sex, the >50 U group was more likely to sustain penetrating injury (47% vs. 30%, p < 0.05). Patients receiving >50 U of blood had lower field and arrival blood pressure and larger prehospital and emergency department resuscitation volumes ( p < 0.05). Patients in the >50 U group had lower survival than those in the ≤50 cohort (31% vs. 79%; p < 0.05). Patients who received WB (n = 1,291) had 43% increased odds of survival compared with those who received only component therapy (n = 1,008) (1.09-1.87, p = 0.009) and higher 30-day survival at transfusion volumes >50 U. CONCLUSION: Patient survival rates in patients receiving >50 U of blood in the first 4 hours of care are as high as 50% to 60%, with survival still at 15% to 25% after 100 U. While responsible blood stewardship is critical, futility should not be declared based on high transfusion volumes alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

A rare case of survival after traumatic blunt ventricular rupture.

A male in his 40s presented to the trauma center via air ambulance after colliding with a cement wall at highway speeds. Cross-sectional imaging revealed a right ventricular pseudoaneurysm, confirmed by echocardiography. He was taken emergently to the operating room where he was found to have a pericardial laceration, hemopericardium and a right ventricular rupture, which was primarily repaired. Postoperatively, the patient was transferred to intensive care and after 34 days in the hospital was ultimately discharged home.

Dysphagia is associated with worse clinical outcomes in geriatric trauma patients.

Introduction: Dysphagia is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization in hospitalized patients, but studies on outcomes in geriatric trauma patients with dysphagia are limited. We hypothesized that geriatric trauma patients with dysphagia would have worse clinical outcomes compared with those without dysphagia. Methods: Patients with and without dysphagia were compared in a single-center retrospective cohort study of trauma patients aged ≥65 years admitted in 2019. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, discharge destination, and unplanned ICU admission. Multivariable regression analyses and Bayesian analyses adjusted for age, Injury Severity Score, mechanism of injury, and gender were performed to determine the association between dysphagia and clinical outcomes. Results: Of 1706 geriatric patients, 69 patients (4%) were diagnosed with dysphagia. Patients with dysphagia were older with a higher Injury Severity Score. Increased odds of mortality did not reach statistical significance (OR 1.6, 95% CI 0.6 to 3.4, p=0.30). Dysphagia was associated with increased odds of unplanned ICU admission (OR 4.6, 95% CI 2.0 to 9.6, p≤0.001) and non-home discharge (OR 5.2, 95% CI 2.4 to 13.9, p≤0.001), as well as increased ICU LOS (OR 4.9, 95% CI 3.1 to 8.1, p≤0.001), and hospital LOS (OR 2.1, 95% CI 1.7 to 2.6, p≤0.001). On Bayesian analysis, dysphagia was associated with an increased probability of longer hospital and ICU LOS, unplanned ICU admission, and non-home discharge. Conclusions: Clinically apparent dysphagia is associated with poor outcomes, but it remains unclear if dysphagia represents a modifiable risk factor or a marker of underlying frailty, leading to poor outcomes. This study highlights the importance of screening protocols for dysphagia in geriatric trauma patients to possibly mitigate adverse outcomes. Level of evidence: Level III.

Ketamine for acute pain after trauma: the KAPT randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence for effective pain management and opioid minimization of intravenous ketamine in elective surgery has been extrapolated to acutely injured patients, despite limited supporting evidence in this population. This trial seeks to determine the effectiveness of the addition of sub-dissociative ketamine to a pill-based, opioid-minimizing multi-modal pain regimen (MMPR) for post traumatic pain. METHODS: This is a single-center, parallel-group, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial comparing a MMPR to a MMPR plus a sub-dissociative ketamine infusion. All trauma patients 16 years and older admitted following a trauma which require intermediate (IMU) or intensive care unit (ICU) level of care are eligible. Prisoners, patients who are pregnant, patients not expected to survive, and those with contraindications to ketamine are excluded from this study. The primary outcome is opioid use, measured by morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per patient per day (MME/patient/day). The secondary outcomes include total MME, pain scores, morbidity, lengths of stay, opioid prescriptions at discharge, and patient centered outcomes at discharge and 6 months. DISCUSSION: This trial will determine the effectiveness of sub-dissociative ketamine infusion as part of a MMPR in reducing in-hospital opioid exposure in adult trauma patients. Furthermore, it will inform decisions regarding acute pain strategies on patient centered outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Ketamine for Acute Pain Management After Trauma (KAPT) with registration # NCT04129086 was registered on October 16, 2019.

Value in acute care surgery, part 2: Defining and measuring quality outcomes.

ABSTRACT: The prior article in this series delved into measuring cost in acute care surgery, and this subsequent work explains in detail how quality is measured. Specifically, objective quality is based on outcome measures, both from administrative and clinical registry databases from a multitude of sources. Risk stratification is key in comparing similar populations across diseases and procedures. Importantly, a move toward focusing on subjective outcomes like patient-reported outcomes measures and financial well-being are vital to evolving surgical quality measures for the 21st century.

Data resources for evaluating the economic and financial consequences of surgical care in the United States.

ABSTRACT: Evaluating the relationship between health care costs and quality is paramount in the current health care economic climate, as an understanding of value is needed to drive policy decisions. While many policy analyses are focused on the larger health care system, there is a pressing need for surgically focused economic analyses. Surgical care is costly, and innovative technology is constantly introduced into the operating room, and surgical care impacts patients' short- and long-term physical and economic well-being. Unfortunately, significant knowledge gaps exist regarding the relationship between cost, value, and economic impact of surgical interventions. Despite the plethora of health care data available in the forms of claims databases, discharge databases, and national surveys, no single source of data contains all the information needed for every policy-relevant analysis of surgical care. For this reason, it is important to understand which data are available and what can be accomplished with each of the data sets. In this article, we provide an overview of databases commonly used in surgical health services research. We focus our review on the following five categories of data: governmental claims databases, commercial claims databases, hospital-based clinical databases, state and national discharge databases, and national surveys. For each, we present a summary of the database sampling frame, clinically relevant variables, variables relevant to economic analyses, strengths, weaknesses, and examples of surgically relevant analyses. This review is intended to improve understanding of the current landscape of data available, as well as stimulate novel analyses among surgical populations. Ongoing debates over national health policy reforms may shape the delivery of surgical care for decades to come. Appropriate use of available data resources can improve our understanding of the economic impact of surgical care on our health care system and our patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Regular Review, Level V.

Multi-center validation of the Bowel Injury Predictive Score (BIPS) for the early identification of need to operate in blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries.

INTRODUCTION: The Bowel Injury Prediction Score (BIPS) is a tool for identifying patients at risk for blunt bowel and mesenteric injury (BBMI) requiring surgery. BIPS is calculated by assigning one point for each of the following: (1) WBC ≥ 17,000, (2) abdominal tenderness, and (3) injury grade ≥ 4 (mesenteric contusion or hematoma with bowel wall thickening or adjacent interloop fluid collection) on CT scan. A total score ≥ 2 is associated with BBMI requiring surgery. We aimed to validate the BIPS as a predictor for patients with BBMIs requiring operative intervention in a multi-center prospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were prospectively enrolled at 15 U.S. trauma centers following blunt trauma with suspicion of BBMI on CT scan between July 1, 2018 and July 31, 2019. The BIPS was calculated for each patient enrolled in the study. RESULTS: Of 313 patients, 38% had BBMI requiring operative intervention. Patients were significantly more likely to require surgery in the presence of abdominal tenderness (OR, 3.6; 95% CI, 1.6-8.0) and CT grade ≥ 4 (OR, 11.7; 95% CI, 5.7-23.7). Patients with a BIPS ≥ 2 were more than ten times more likely to require laparotomy than those with a BIPS < 2 (OR, 10.1; 95% CI, 5.0-20.4). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of a BIPS ≥ 2 for BBMI requiring surgery was 72% (CI 0.6-0.8), 78% (CI 0.7-0.8), 67% (CI 0.6-0.8), and 82% (CI 0.8-0.9), respectively. The AUROC curve for BIPS ≥ 2 was 0.75. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of a BIPS ≥ 2 for BBMI requiring surgery in patients with severe alteration in mental status (GCS 3-8) was 70% (CI 0.5-0.9), 92% (CI 0.8-1.0), 82% (CI 0.6-1.0), and 86% (CI 0.7-1.0), respectively. CONCLUSION: This prospective multi-center trial validates BIPS as a predictor of BBMI requiring surgery. Calculation of BIPS during the initial evaluation of trauma patients is a useful adjunct to help general surgeons taking trauma call determine operative versus non-operative management of patients with BBMI including those with severe alteration in mental status.

Impact of Opioid-Minimizing Pain Protocols After Burn Injury.

In 2019, we implemented a pill-based, opioid-minimizing pain protocol and protocolized moderate sedation for dressing changes in order to decrease opioid exposure in burn patients. We hypothesized that these interventions would reduce inpatient opioid exposure without increasing acute pain scores. Two groups of consecutive patients admitted to the burn service were compared: Pre-group (from January 1, 2018 to July 31, 2019) and Post-group (from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020) from before and after the implementation of the protocols (from August 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019). We abstracted patient demographics and burn injury characteristics from the burn registry. We obtained opioid exposure and pain scale scores from the electronic medical record. The primary outcome was total morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). Secondary outcomes included MMEs/day, pain domain-specific MMEs, and pain scores. Pain was estimated by creating a normalized pain score (range 0-1), which incorporated three different pain scales (Numeric Rating Scale, Behavioral Pain Scale, and Behavioral Pain Assessment Scale). Groups were compared using Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-square tests. Treatment effects were estimated using Bayesian generalized linear models. There were no differences in demographics or burn characteristics between the Pre-group (n = 495) and Post-group (n = 174). The Post-group had significantly lower total MMEs (Post-group 110 MMEs [32, 325] vs Pre-group 230 [60, 840], P < .001), MMEs/day (Post-group 33 MMEs/day [15, 54] vs Pre-group 52 [27, 80], P < .001), and domain-specific total MMEs. No difference in average normalized pain scores was seen. Implementation of opioid-minimizing protocols for acute burn pain was associated with a significant reduction in inpatient opioid exposure without an increase in pain scores.

Association of Prehospital Mode of Transport With Mortality in Penetrating Trauma: A Trauma System-Level Assessment of Private Vehicle Transportation vs Ground Emergency Medical Services.

IMPORTANCE: Time to definitive care following injury is important to the outcomes of trauma patients. Prehospital trauma care is provided based on policies developed by individual trauma systems and is an important component of the care of injured patients. Given a paucity of systems-level trauma research, considerable variability exists in prehospital care policies across trauma systems, potentially affecting patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether private vehicle prehospital transport confers a survival advantage vs ground emergency medical services (EMS) transport following penetrating injuries in urban trauma systems. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of data included in the National Trauma Data Bank from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012, comprising 298 level 1 and level 2 trauma centers that contribute data to the National Trauma Data Bank that are located within the 100 most populous metropolitan areas in the United States. Of 2 329 446 patients assessed for eligibility, 103 029 were included in this study. All patients were 16 years or older, had a gunshot wound or stab wound, and were transported by ground EMS or private vehicle. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: In-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Of the 2 329 446 records assessed for eligibility, 103 029 individuals at 298 urban level 1 and level 2 trauma centers were included in the analysis. The study population was predominantly male (87.6%), with a mean age of 32.3 years. Among those included, 47.9% were black, 26.3% were white, and 18.4% were Hispanic. Following risk adjustment, individuals with penetrating injuries transported by private vehicle were less likely to die than patients transported by ground EMS (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.31-0.47). This association remained statistically significant on stratified analysis of the gunshot wound (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56) and stab wound (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.20-0.52) subgroups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Private vehicle transport is associated with a significantly lower likelihood of death when compared with ground EMS transport for individuals with gunshot wounds and stab wounds in urban US trauma systems. System-level evidence such as this can be a valuable tool for those responsible for developing and implementing policies at the trauma system level.

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.

Evaluation of readmissions due to surgical site infections: A potential target for quality improvement.

INTRODUCTION: Readmissions have become a focus of pay-for-performance programs. Surgical site infections (SSI) are the reason for most readmissions. Readmissions for SSI could be a unique target for quality improvement. METHODS: Readmission risk for SSI were evaluated for patients undergoing colectomies from 2013 to 2014. Hazard models were developed to examine factors associated with and hospital-level variation in risk-adjusted rates of readmission for SSI. RESULTS: Among 59,088 patients at 525 hospitals, the rate of readmissions for SSI ranged from 1.45% to 6.34%. Characteristics associated with a greater likelihood of SSI readmissions include male gender, smoking, open surgery and hospitals with increased socioeconomically-disadvantaged patients. After risk adjustment, there was little correlation between hospital performance with SSI readmission rate and performance with overall SSI or total readmission rate (r2 = 0.29, r2 = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Readmission for SSI represents a unique aspect of quality beyond that offered by measuring only SSI or readmission rates alone, and may provide actionable quality improvement.

Geographic disparities in access to urban trauma care: defining the problem and identifying a solution for gunshot wound victims in Chicago.

BACKGROUND: Timely transport to designated trauma centers impacts mortality following serious injury. We examined whether the distribution of trauma centers in Chicago has created disparities in access to trauma care. METHODS: Using the Illinois State Trauma Registry, locations of Chicago-area gunshot wounds (GSWs) from 1999 to 2009 were geocoded and transport times were analyzed for pediatric (age ≤ 15) and adult (age ≥ 16) GSWs. RESULTS: A total of 11,744 included pediatric and adult GSWs were analyzed. Adults experienced longer mean transport times (11.3 vs 10.2 minutes, P < .001). Disproportionate numbers of adult GSW victims experienced over 30-minute transport times on Chicago's south side. Pediatric GSWs demonstrated no such disparity, likely attributable to the presence of a pediatric trauma center on the southeast side. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic disparities in access to trauma care exist even within urban trauma systems. The absence of an adult trauma center on Chicago's southeast side has contributed to these disparities.