A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.

Shock is a life-threatening circulatory failure that results in inadequate tissue perfusion and oxygenation. Vasopressors and inotropes are vasoactive medications that are vital in increasing systemic vascular resistance and cardiac contractility, respectively, in patients presenting with shock. To be well versed in using these agents is an important skill to have in the critical care setting where patients can frequently exhibit symptoms of shock. In this review, we will discuss the pathophysiological mechanisms of shock and evaluate the current evidence behind the management of shock with an emphasis on vasopressors and inotropes.

So You Want to Do Trauma Research? A Practical Guide to Creating a Research Program at Your Home Institution.

BACKGROUND: There are 3 pillars upon which the foundation of a teaching program in health care is founded: research, education, and clinical care. However, in a busy academic trauma practice, the unfortunate reality is that research is often a low priority in the frenzy of mandates for clinical productivity. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this report is to advise hospitals on how to create a modest trauma research program that supports research interests without significantly impacting the overall clinical productivity of the department. METHODS: Relevant literature related to the development of an academic trauma research department was reviewed. Relevant articles were then compared to this manuscript to assess the novelty of the topic. RESULTS: There are 4 essential components of a trauma research program: (1) a zealot, (2) institutional commitment and support, (3) a statistician, and (4) registry data access. CONCLUSION: The creation of a trauma research program may seem like a herculean effort, but this work is necessary for institutions hoping to achieve status as a Level I/II trauma center. Following the steps outlined in this report, trauma providers can create a robust research program at their institution without sacrificing clinical productivity.

Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria: What You Need to Know.

ABSTRACT: Since the beginning of time, man has been intrigued with the question of when a person is considered dead. Traditionally, death has been considered the cessation of all cardiorespiratory function. At the end of the last century a new definition was introduced into the lexicon surrounding death in addition to cessation of cardiac and respiratory function: Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria (BD/DNC). There are medical, legal, ethical, and even theological controversies that surround this diagnosis. In addition, there is no small amount of confusion among medical practitioners regarding the diagnosis of BD/DNC. For families enduring the devastating development of BD/DNC in their loved one, it is the duty of the principal caregiver to provide a transparent presentation of the clinical situation and clear definitive explanation of what constitutes BD/DNC. In this report, we present a historical outline of the development of BD/DNC as a clinical entity, specifically how one goes about making a determination of BD/DNC, what steps are taken once a diagnosis of BD/DNC is made, a brief discussion of some of the ethical/moral issues surrounding this diagnosis, and finally the caregiver approach to the family of a patient who had been declared with BD/DNC. It is our humble hope that with a greater understanding of the myriad of complicated issues surrounding the diagnosis of BD/DNC that the bedside caregiver can provide needed closure for both the patient and the family enduring this critical time in their life.

The State of the Union: Trauma System Development in the United States.

Injury is both a national and international epidemic that affects people of all age, race, religion, and socioeconomic class. Injury was the fourth leading cause of death in the United States (U.S.) in 2021 and results in an incalculable emotional and financial burden on our society. Despite this, when prevention fails, trauma centers allow communities to prepare to care for the traumatically injured patient. Using lessons learned from the military, trauma care has grown more sophisticated in the last 50 years. In 1966, the first civilian trauma center was established, bringing management of injury into the new age. Now, the American College of Surgeons recognizes 4 levels of trauma centers (I-IV), with select states recognizing Level V trauma centers. The introduction of trauma centers in the U.S. has been proven to reduce morbidity and mortality for the injured patient. However, despite the proven benefits of trauma centers, the U.S. lacks a single, unified, trauma system and instead operates within a "system of systems" creating vast disparities in the level of care that can be received, especially in rural and economically disadvantaged areas. In this review we present the history of trauma system development in the U.S, define the different levels of trauma centers, present evidence that trauma systems and trauma centers improve outcomes, outline the current state of trauma system development in the U.S, and briefly mention some of the current challenges and opportunities in trauma system development in the U.S. today.

American Trauma Care: A System of Systems.

OBJECTIVE: The benefits of organized trauma systems have been well-documented during 50 years of trauma system development in the United States. Unfortunately, despite this evidence, trauma system development has occurred only sporadically in the 50 states. METHODS: The relevant literature related to trauma system design and development was reviewed based on relevance to the study. Information from these sources was summarized into a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. RESULTS: Strengths discovered were leadership brought forth by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma and meaningful change generated from The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report addressing the fractionation of the nation's trauma systems, whereas weaknesses included patient outcome disparities due to the lack of a national governing authority, undertriage, underresourced rural trauma, and underfunded trauma research. Opportunities included the creation of level IV trauma centers; telemedicine; the development of rural trauma management courses; air medical transport to bring high-intensity care to the patient, particularly in rural areas; trauma research; and trauma prevention through outreach and educational programs. The following threats were determined: mass casualty incidents, motor vehicle collisions because of the high rate of motor vehicle collision deaths in the United States relative to other developed countries, and underfunded trauma systems. CONCLUSION: Much work remains to be done in the development of an American trauma system. Recommendations include implementation of trauma care governance at the federal level; national oversight and support of emergency medical services systems, particularly in rural areas with strict reporting processes for emergency medical services programs; national organization of our mass casualty response; increased federal and state funding allocated to trauma centers; a consistent model for trauma system development; and trauma research.

Comprehensive Review of Current Pain Management in Rib Fractures With Practical Guidelines for Clinicians.

Rib fractures are present in 15% of all traumas and 60% of patients with chest traumas. Rib fractures are not life-threatening in isolation, but they can be quite painful which leads to splinting and compromise of respiratory function. Splinting limits the ability of a patient to take a deep breath, which leads to atelectasis, atelectasis to poor secretion removal, and poor secretion removal leads to pneumonia. Pneumonia is the common pathway to respiratory failure in patients with rib fractures. It is noted that in the elderly, each rib fracture increases developing pneumonia by 27% and the risk of dying by 19%. From a public health perspective, rib fractures have long-term implications with only 59% of patients returning to work at 6 months. In this review we will examine the state of art as it currently exists with regard to the management of pain associated with rib fractures. Included in this overview will be a brief review of the anatomy of the thorax and some important physiologic concepts, the latest trends in pharmacologic and noninvasive means of managing rib pain, a special section on epidural anesthesia, some other alternative invasive methods of pain control, and a review of the recent literature on rib plating. Finally, a practical, easy to follow guideline, to manage the patient with pain from rib fractures will be presented.

Cancer Provider and Survivor Experiences With Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid shifts in cancer survivorship care, including the widespread use of telehealth. Given the swift transition and limited data on preferences and experiences around telehealth, we surveyed oncology providers and post-treatment survivors to better understand experiences with the transition to telehealth. METHODS: We distributed provider (MD, PA or NP, nurse, navigator, and social worker) and survivor surveys through the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer in mid-October 2020. Survivor surveys were also disseminated through patient advocacy organizations. We included questions on demographics, experiences with telehealth, and preferences for future telehealth utilization. RESULTS: Among N = 607 providers and N = 539 cancer survivors, there was overwhelmingly more support from providers than from survivors for delivery of various types of survivorship care via telehealth and greater comfort with telehealth technologies. The only types of appointments deemed appropriate for survivorship care by both > 50% of providers and survivors were discussion of laboratory results or imaging, assessment and/or management of cancer treatment symptoms, nutrition counseling, and patient navigation support. Only a quarter of survivors reported increased access to health care services (25.5%), and 32.0% reported that they would use telehealth again. CONCLUSION: Although there have been drastic changes in technological capabilities and billing reimbursement structures for telehealth, there are still concerns around delivery of a broad range of survivorship care services via telehealth, particularly from the patient perspective. Still, offering telehealth services, where endorsed by providers and if available and acceptable to cancer survivors, may provide more efficient and accessible care following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Evaluation and Management of Malignant Biliary Obstruction.

There is no reason to be pollyannaish when approaching patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Although technology has allowed refining diagnosis and resectability of cancers causing biliary obstruction, outcomes have not improved significantly. The previous preponderant place of surgical procedures now is replaced by endoluminal and percutaneous techniques for the management of symptoms of MBO. Because quantity of life often is the primary and sole outcome for evaluation of various interventions, the main focus of patient quality of life may be erroneously deemphasized. Lagging behind scientific advances are the availability of palliative care services and studies of patient-related outcomes.

Variability in the timeliness of interventional radiology availability for angioembolization of hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures: a prospective survey among U.S. level I trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Patients with hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures have high mortality due to delayed hemorrhage control. We hypothesized that the availability of interventional radiology (IR) for angioembolization may vary in spite of the mandated coverage at US Level I trauma centers, and that the priority treatment sequence would depend on IR availability. METHODS: This survey was designed to investigate IR availability and pelvic fracture management practices. Six email invitations were sent to 158 trauma medical directors at Level I trauma centers. Participants were allowed to skip questions and irrelevant questions were skipped; therefore, not all questions were answered by all participants. The primary outcome was the priority treatment sequence for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. Predictor variables were arrival times for IR when working off-site and intervention preparation times. Kruskal-Wallis and ordinal logistic regression were used; alpha = 0.05. RESULTS: Forty of the 158 trauma medical directors responded to the survey (response rate: 25.3%). Roughly half of participants had 24-h on-site IR coverage, 24% (4/17) of participants reported an arrival time ≥ 31 min when IR was on-call. 46% (17/37) of participants reported an IR procedure setup time of 31-120 min. Arrival time when IR was working off-site, and intervention preparation time did not significantly affect the sequence priority of angioembolization for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma medical directors should review literature and guidelines on time to angioembolization, their arrival times for IR, and their procedural setup times for angioembolization to ensure utilization of angioembolization in an optimal sequence for patient survival.

Variability in pelvic packing practices for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures at US level 1 trauma centers.

BACKGROUND: Mortality from hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures remains high. Guidelines offer varying care approaches including the use of pelvic packing (PP), which was recently adopted for potential control of bleeding for this condition. However, the implementation of PP is uncertain as the debate on the optimal resuscitation strategy, angioembolization or PP continues. The study was designed to assess current practices among level 1 trauma centers in the US in regard to PP treatment for hemodynamically unstable pelvic fractures. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was created to assess when to apply PP, application approach, and the respondent's anecdotal perception on safety and effectiveness. Trauma Medical Directors at 158 US level 1 trauma centers were sent biweekly email invitations for 3 months. Participants were allowed to skip questions for any reason. The study hypothesis was that PP practices vary by US census bureau region, annual trauma admissions, and length of time in years since each trauma center received their respective level 1 trauma center designation. RESULTS: Twenty-five percent (40/158) of trauma medical directors participated and 75% (118/158) of the trauma medical directors did not participate. Of those who took the survey, 36/40 (90%) completed the survey and 4/40 (10%) partially completed the survey. Only 36 trauma medical directors responded on their perception of safety and effectiveness; 72% (26/36) of participants perceived PP as safe, whereas only a third (12/36) of participants perceived PP as effective. There were 25 trauma medical directors who provided the sequence of treatment modalities utilized at their level 1 trauma center, 76% (19/25) of participants reported that PP is utilized as the third or fourth priority. None of the participating level 1 trauma centers reported a preference towards utilization of PP as the first priority treatment. Half of the participants reported a preference towards applying PP only as a last resort to control hemorrhage. Northeastern and Western level 1 trauma centers were significantly more likely than Midwestern and Southern level 1 trauma centers to have reported application of PP to all hemodynamically unstable patients (p = 0.05). Midwestern, Southern, and Western level 1 trauma centers were significantly more likely to have perceived PP as safe than Northeastern level 1 trauma centers (p = 0.04). All low-volume and 38% high-volume level 1 trauma centers perceived PP to increase infection risks, (p = 0.03). We observed no association between the length of time each trauma center was designated a level 1 trauma center, and all participant responses. CONCLUSION: Controversy and varying anecdotal perception regarding safety and effectiveness of PP prevails among trauma medical directors at level 1 trauma centers in the US.

Implementing successful strategic plans: a simple formula.

Strategic planning is a process. One way to think of strategic planning is to envision its development and design as a framework that will help your hospital navigate through internal and external changing environments over time. Although the process of strategic planning can feel daunting, following a simple formula involving five steps using the mnemonic B.E.G.I.N. (Begin, Evaluate, Goals & Objectives, Integration, and Next steps) will help the planning process feel more manageable, and lead you to greater success.

Pretransplant immunomodulation of highly sensitized small bowel transplant candidates with intravenous immune globulin.

Presence of preformed lymphocytotoxic antibodies may represent a barrier to isolated intestinal transplantation (IITx). We developed an intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg) based desensitization protocol for candidates with high panel-reactive antibodies (PRA). Six patients with a mean PRA of 72+/-22% were included in a four-level (L) protocol with escalating doses of IVIg (L1, L2), addition of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) or plasmapheresis (L3); and anti-CD20 (Rituximab) (L4). Four of six candidates improved their PRAs (from a mean of 66.2% to 25.5%; P=0.01) and were successfully transplanted. At a mean follow-up of 8 months, number and severity of rejection episodes of protocol patients did not differ from patients with low PRA transplanted during the same period. These data support the use of IVIg to desensitize patients waiting for IITx. It increases the applicability of IITx, and reduces the waiting time and mortality on the waiting list with outcomes comparable to nonsensitized recipients.

Anatomic segmental resection compared to major hepatectomy in the treatment of liver neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: Familiarity with liver anatomy and refinements in operative technique have led to interest in liver conservation when dealing with hepatic tumors. There is thought to be less morbidity, less blood loss (EBL), a shorter hospital stay (LOS), and no penalty for long-term survival with segmental hepatectomy. METHODS: One hundred ninety-six patients who underwent segmental (SEG group) (N=70) or major (MAJOR group) (N=126) hepatectomy for liver neoplasms were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical parameters of mortality, morbidity, EBL, LOS, and actuarial survival in patients with colorectal metastases were examined. RESULTS: There were no differences in age or gender between the SEG and MAJOR groups. There were no deaths among 64 non-cirrhotic patients in the SEG group and 4 deaths (3.2%) among 124 non-cirrhotic patients in the MAJOR group (p=0.19). There were 4 postoperative complications in the SEG group (5.6%) and 22 in the MAJOR group (17.3%) (p<0.05).The EBL for the SEG group was 912+/-842 ml compared to 3675+/-3110 ml in the MAJOR group (p<0.001).The hospital LOS for the SEG group was 9.4+/-6.4 days and for the MAJOR group 10.2+/-5.9 days (p=0.32). Life table analysis of survival for resection of colorectal metastases showed two-year patient survival of 40% in the SEG group (N=17) and 45% for the MAJOR group (N=46). CONCLUSION: Segmental resections were associated with less EBL and fewer postoperative complications. There was a trend towards fewer deaths in non-cirrhotic patients, and no apparent penalty for a smaller hepatic resection in long-term survival. While sometimes technically more challenging, segmental resections are preferable when feasible and should be utilized in efforts to conserve liver parenchyma.