To observe or not to observe: Evaluation of the modified brain injury guideline management of small volume intracranial hemorrhage.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with small volume intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) are categorized as modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) 1 and are managed with a 6-h emergency department (ED) observation period. The current study aimed to describe the mBIG 1 patient population and determine the utility of the ED observation period. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on trauma patients with small volume ICH. Exclusion criteria were Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) < 13 and penetrating injuries. RESULTS: 359 patients were identified over the 8-year study period. The most common ICH was SDH (52.7%) followed by SAH (50.1%). Two patients (0.56%) had neurologic deterioration, but neither had radiographic progression. Overall, 14.3% of the cohort had radiographic progression; none required neurosurgical intervention. Four patients (1.1%) had readmission related to TBI from the index admission. CONCLUSION: There were no patients with small volume ICH that required neurosurgical intervention despite a small subset of patients having radiographic or clinical deterioration. Patients who meet the mBIG 1 criteria may be managed safely without an ED observation period.

Patient characteristics and diagnostic tests associated with syncopal falls: A Southwestern surgical congress multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Patients suspected of syncope frequently undergo laboratory and imaging studies to determine the etiology of the syncope. Variability exists in these workups across institutions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utilization and diagnostic yield of these workups and the patient characteristics associated with syncopal falls. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective review was performed on adult patients admitted after a fall between 1/2017-12/2018. Syncopal falls were compared to non-syncopal falls. RESULTS: 4478 patients were included. There were 795 (18%) patients with a syncopal fall. Electrocardiogram, troponin, echocardiogram, CT angiography (CTA), and carotid ultrasound were more frequently tested in syncope patients compared to non-syncope patients. Syncope patients had higher rates of positive telemetry/Holter monitoring, CTAs, and electroencephalograms. CONCLUSION: Patients who sustain syncopal falls frequently undergo diagnostic testing without a higher yield to determine the etiology of syncope.

Disparate resource allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic among trauma centers: A Western Trauma Association national survey.

BACKGROUND: During the pandemic, hospitals implemented disaster plans to conserve resources while maintaining patient care. It was unclear how these plans impacted injury care and trauma surgeons. STUDY DESIGN: A 16 question survey assessing COVID-related hospital policy and resource allocation pre-COVID-19 peak (March), and a 19 question post-peak (June) survey was distributed to Trauma/Critical Care attending's via social media and the Western Trauma Association member email list. RESULTS: There were 120 pre- and 134 post-peak respondents. Most (95%) altered trauma PPE components, a nd 67% noted changes in their admission population pre-peak while 80% did so post-peak. Penetrating injury increased 56% at Level 1 centers and 27% at Level 2 centers. Altered ICU and transfusion criteria were noted with 25% relocating TBI patients, 17% revised rib fracture admission criteria, and 23% adjusted transfusion practices. Importantly, 12% changed their massive transfusion protocol, with 11% reducing the symptomatic transfusion threshold from 7 g/dL to 6 g/dL. Half (50%) disclosed impediments to patient care including PPE shortages and COVID test-related procedural delay (Fig. 2). While only 14% felt their institution was overwhelmed by COVID, the vast majority (81%) shared durable concerns about personal health and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Disparate approaches to COVID-19 preparedness and response characterize survey respondent facility actions. These disparities, especially between Level 1 and Level 2 centers, represent opportunities for the trauma community to coordinate best-practice planning and implementation in light of future consequence infection or pandemic care.

A multicenter validation of the modified brain injury guidelines: Are they safe and effective?

BACKGROUND: The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) are an algorithm for treating patients with traumatic brain injury and intracranial hemorrhage by which selected patients do not require a repeat head computed tomography, a neurosurgery consult, or even an admission. The mBIG refined the original Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) to improve safety and reproducibility. The purpose of this study is to assess safety and resource utilization with mBIG implementation. METHODS: The mBIG were implemented at three Level I trauma centers in August 2017. A multicenter retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on adult mBIG 1 and 2 patients. The post-mBIG implementation period (August 2017 to February 2021) was compared with a previous BIG retrospective evaluation (January 2014 to December 2016). RESULTS: There were 764 patients in the two study periods. No differences were identified in demographics, Injury Severity Score, or admission Glasgow Coma Scale score. Fewer computed tomography scans (2 [1,2] vs. 2 [2,3], p < 0.0001) and neurosurgery consults (61.9% vs. 95.9%, p < 0.0001) were obtained post-mBIG implementation. Hospital (2 [1,4] vs. 2 [2,4], p = 0.013) and intensive care unit (0 [0,1] vs. 1 [1,2], p < 0.0001) length of stay were shorter after mBIG implementation. No difference was seen in the rate of clinical or radiographic progression, neurosurgery operations, or mortality between the two groups.After mBIG implementation, eight patients (1.6%) worsened clinically. Six patients that clinically progressed were discharged with Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 without needing neurosurgery intervention. One patient had clinical and radiographic decompensation and required craniotomy. Another patient worsened clinically and radiographically, but due to metastatic cancer, elected to pursue comfort measures and died. CONCLUSION: This prospective validation shows the mBIG are safe, pragmatic, and can dramatically improve resource utilization when implemented. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Social vulnerability is associated with increased morbidity following colorectal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Neighborhood measures of social vulnerability encompassing multiple sociodemographic factors can be used to quantify disparities in outcomes. We hypothesize patients with high Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) are at increased risk of morbidity following colectomy. METHODS: We used local 2012-2017 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data to study colectomy patients, examining associations between SVI and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: We included 976 patients from five hospitals. High SVI (>75th percentile) was associated with increased postoperative morbidity on unadjusted analysis (OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.35-2.52, p < 0.001); this association persisted after adjusting for demographics and comorbidities (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.15-2.31, p = 0.005). The association with SVI was not significant after adjusting for perioperative risk modifiers such as emergent presentation (OR 1.37, 95% CI 0.95-1.98, p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: High social vulnerability is associated with increased postoperative complications. This effect appears mediated by perioperative risk factors, suggesting potential to improve outcomes by facilitating timely surgical intervention.

Development and Validation of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Postoperative Intensive Care Unit Stay in a Broad Surgical Population.

IMPORTANCE: Despite limited capacity and expensive cost, there are minimal objective data to guide postoperative allocation of intensive care unit (ICU) beds. The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) uses 8 preoperative variables to predict many common postoperative complications, but it has not yet been evaluated in predicting postoperative ICU admission. OBJECTIVE: To determine if the SURPAS model could accurately predict postoperative ICU admission in a broad surgical population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This decision analytical model was a retrospective, observational analysis of prospectively collected patient data from the 2012 to 2018 American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, which were merged with individual patients' electronic health record data to capture postoperative ICU use. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to determine how the 8 preoperative variables of the SURPAS model predicted ICU use compared with a model inputting all 28 preoperatively available NSQIP variables. Data included in the analysis were collected for the ACS NSQIP at 5 hospitals (1 tertiary academic center, 4 academic affiliated hospitals) within the University of Colorado Health System between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2018. Included patients were those undergoing surgery in 9 surgical specialties during the 2012 to 2018 period. Data were analyzed from May 29 to July 30, 2021. EXPOSURE: Surgery in 9 surgical specialties, including general, gynecology, orthopedic, otolaryngology, plastic, thoracic, urology, vascular, and neurosurgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Use of ICU care up to 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 34 568 patients were included in the analytical data set: 32 032 (92.7%) in the cohort without postoperative ICU use and 2545 (7.4%) in the cohort with postoperative ICU use (no ICU use: mean [SD] age, 54.9 [16.6] years; 18 188 women [56.8%]; ICU use: mean [SD] age, 60.3 [15.3] years; 1333 men [52.4%]). For the internal chronologic validation of the 7-variable SURPAS model, data from 2012 to 2016 were used as the training data set (n = 24 250, 70.2% of the total sample size of 34 568) and data from 2017 to 2018 were used as the test data set (n = 10 318, 29.8% of the total sample size of 34 568). The C statistic improved in the test data set compared with the training data set (0.933; 95% CI, 0.924-0.941 vs 0.922; 95% CI, 0.917-0.928), whereas the Brier score was slightly worse in the test data set compared with the training data set (0.045; 95% CI, 0.042-0.048 vs 0.045; 95% CI, 0.043-0.047). The SURPAS model compared favorably with the model inputting all 28 NSQIP variables, with both having good calibration between observed and expected outcomes in the Hosmer-Lemeshow graphs and similar Brier scores (model inputting all variables, 0.044; 95% CI, 0.043-0.048; SURPAS model, 0.045; 95% CI, 0.042-0.046) and C statistics (model inputting all variables, 0.929; 95% CI, 0.925-0.934; SURPAS model, 0.925; 95% CI, 0.921-0.930). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Results of this decision analytical model study revealed that the SURPAS prediction model accurately predicted postoperative ICU use across a diverse surgical population. These results suggest that the SURPAS prediction model can be used to help with preoperative planning and resource allocation of limited ICU beds.

Development and validation of a prediction model for conversion of outpatient to inpatient surgery.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospital admission after intended outpatient surgery is an undesirable outcome. We aimed to develop a prediction model that estimates a patient's risk of conversion from outpatient surgery to inpatient hospitalization. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, 2005 to 2018. Conversion from outpatient to inpatient surgery was defined as having outpatient surgery and >1 day hospital stay. The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System was developed using multiple logistic regression on a training dataset (2005-2016) and compared to a model using the 26 relevant variables in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System was validated using a testing dataset (2017-2018). Performance statistics and Hosmer-Lemeshow plots were compared. Two high-risk definitions were compared: (1) the maximum Youden index, and (2) the cohort above the tenth decile of risk on the Hosmer-Lemeshow plot. The sensitivities, specificities, positive predictive values, negative predictive values, and accuracies were compared. RESULTS: In all, 2,822,379 patients were included; 3.6% of patients unexpectedly converted to inpatient. The 6-variable Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System model performed comparably to the 26-variable American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program model (c-indices = 0.818 vs. 0.823; Brier scores = 0.0308 vs 0.0306, respectively). The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System performed well on internal validation (c-index = 0.818, Brier score = 0.0341). The tenth decile of risk definition had higher specificity, positive predictive values, and accuracy than the maximum Youden index definition, while having lower sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System accurately predicted a patient's risk of unplanned outpatient-to-inpatient conversion. Patients at higher risk should be considered for inpatient surgery, while lower risk patients could safely undergo operations at ambulatory surgery centers.

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.

Prehospital end-tidal carbon dioxide is predictive of death and massive transfusion in injured patients: An Eastern Association for Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Prehospital identification of the injured patient likely to require emergent care remains a challenge. End-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO2) has been used in the prehospital setting to monitor respiratory physiology and confirmation of endotracheal tube placement. Low levels of ETCO2 have been demonstrated to correlate with injury severity and mortality in a number of in-hospital studies. We hypothesized that prehospital ETCO2 values would be predictive of mortality and need for massive transfusion (MT) in intubated patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective multicenter trial with 24 participating centers. Prehospital, emergency department, and hospital values were collected. Receiver operating characteristic curves were created and compared. Massive transfusion defined as >10 U of blood in 6 hours or death in 6 hours with at least 1 U of blood transfused. RESULTS: A total of 1,324 patients were enrolled. ETCO2 (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUROC], 0.67; confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.71) was better in predicting mortality than shock index (SI) (AUROC, 0.55; CI, 0.50-0.60) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) (AUROC, 0.58; CI, 0.53-0.62) (p < 0.0005). Prehospital lowest ETCO2 (AUROC, 0.69; CI, 0.64-0.75), SBP (AUROC, 0.75; CI, 0.70-0.81), and SI (AUROC, 0.74; CI, 0.68-0.79) were all predictive of MT. Analysis of patients with normotension demonstrated lowest prehospital ETCO2 (AUROC, 0.66; CI, 0.61-0.71), which was more predictive of mortality than SBP (AUROC, 0.52; CI, 0.47-0.58) or SI (AUROC, 0.56; CI, 0.50-0.62) (p < 0.001). Lowest prehospital ETCO2 (AUROC, 0.75; CI, 0.65-0.84), SBP (AUROC, 0.63; CI, 0.54-0.74), and SI (AUROC, 0.64; CI, 0.54-0.75) were predictive of MT in normotensive patients. ETCO2 cutoff for MT was 26 mm Hg. The positive predictive value was 16.1%, and negative predictive value was high at 98.1%. CONCLUSION: Prehospital ETCO2 is predictive of mortality and MT. ETCO2 outperformed traditional measures such as SBP and SI in the prediction of mortality. ETCO2 may outperform traditional measures in predicting need for transfusion in occult shock. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic test, level III.

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.

Study of Alteplase for Respiratory Failure in SARS-CoV-2 COVID-19: A Vanguard Multicenter, Rapidly Adaptive, Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vascular microthrombi are a proposed mechanism of COVID-19 respiratory failure. We hypothesized that early administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) followed by therapeutic heparin would improve pulmonary function in these patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does tPA improve pulmonary function in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure, and is it safe? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure were randomized from May14, 2020 through March 3, 2021, in two phases. Phase 1 (n = 36) comprised a control group (standard-of-care treatment) vs a tPA bolus (50-mg tPA IV bolus followed by 7 days of heparin; goal activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT], 60-80 s) group. Phase 2 (n = 14) comprised a control group vs a tPA drip (50-mg tPA IV bolus, followed by tPA drip 2 mg/h plus heparin 500 units/h over 24 h, then heparin to maintain aPTT of 60-80 s for 7 days) group. Patients were excluded from enrollment if they had not undergone a neurologic examination or cross-sectional brain imaging within the previous 4.5 h to rule out stroke and potential for hemorrhagic conversion. The primary outcome was Pao2 to Fio2 ratio improvement from baseline at 48 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included Pao2 to Fio2 ratio improvement of > 50% or Pao2 to Fio2 ratio of ≥ 200 at 48 h (composite outcome), ventilator-free days (VFD), and mortality. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomized: 17 in the control group and 19 in the tPA bolus group in phase 1 and eight in the control group and six in the tPA drip group in phase 2. No severe bleeding events occurred. In the tPA bolus group, the Pao2 to Fio2 ratio values were significantly (P < .017) higher than baseline at 6 through 168 h after randomization; the control group showed no significant improvements. Among patients receiving a tPA bolus, the percent change of Pao2 to Fio2 ratio at 48 h (16.9% control [interquartile range (IQR), -8.3% to 36.8%] vs 29.8% tPA bolus [IQR, 4.5%-88.7%]; P = .11), the composite outcome (11.8% vs 47.4%; P = .03), VFD (0.0 [IQR, 0.0-9.0] vs 12.0 [IQR, 0.0-19.0]; P = .11), and in-hospital mortality (41.2% vs 21.1%; P = .19) did not reach statistically significant differences when compared with those of control participants. The patients who received a tPA drip did not experience benefit. INTERPRETATION: The combination of tPA bolus plus heparin is safe in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure. A phase 3 study is warranted given the improvements in oxygenation and promising observations in VFD and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04357730; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

The patient's voice matters: The impact of advance directives on elderly trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric trauma rates are increasing, yet trauma centers often struggle to provide autonomy regarding decision making to these patients. Advance care planning can assist with this process. Currently, there are limited data on the impact of advance directives (ADs) in elderly trauma patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of preinjury AD in geriatric trauma patients and its impact on outcomes, with the hypothesis that ADs would not be associated with an increase in mortality. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective review was conducted on patients older than 65 years with traumatic injury between 2017 and 2019. Three Level I trauma centers and one Level II trauma center were included. Exclusion criteria were readmission, burn injury, transfer to another facility, discharge from emergency department, and mortality prior to being admitted. RESULTS: There were 6,135 patients identified; 751 (12.2%) had a preinjury AD. Patients in the AD+ group were older (86 vs. 77 years, p < 0.0001), more likely to be women (67.0% vs. 54.8%, p < 0.0001), and had more comorbidities. Hospital length of stay and ventilator days were similar. In-hospital mortality occurred in 236 patients, and 75.4% of them underwent withdrawal of care (WOC). The mortality rate was higher in AD+ group (10.5% vs. 2.9%, p < 0.0001). No difference was seen in the rate of AD between the WOC+ and WOC- group (31.5% vs. 39.6%, p = 0.251). A preinjury AD was identified as an independent predictor of mortality, but not a predictor of WOC. CONCLUSION: Despite a high WOC rate in patients older than 65 years, most patients did not have an AD prior to injury. As the elderly trauma population grows, advance care planning should be better integrated into geriatric care to encourage a patient-centered approach to end-of-life care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level IV.

Early ventilator liberation and decreased sedation needs after tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND: Since the outset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, published tracheostomy guidelines have generally recommended deferral of the procedure beyond the initial weeks of intubation given high mortality as well as concerns about transmission of the infection to providers. It is unclear whether tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 infection facilitates ventilator weaning, and long-term outcomes are not yet reported in the literature. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of tracheostomy outcomes in patients with COVID-19 infection at a single-center academic tertiary referral intensive care unit. Patients underwent percutaneous tracheostomy at the bedside; the procedure was performed with limited staffing to reduce risk of disease transmission. RESULTS: Between March 1 and June 30, 2020, a total of 206 patients with COVID-19 infection required mechanical ventilation and 26 underwent tracheostomy at a mean of 25±5 days after initial intubation. Overall, 81% of tracheostomy patients were liberated from the ventilator at a mean of 9±6 days postprocedure, and 54% were decannulated prior to hospital discharge at a mean of 21±10 days postprocedure. Sedation and pain medication requirements decreased significantly in the week after the procedure. In-hospital mortality was 15%. Among tracheostomy survivors, 68% were discharged to a facility. DISCUSSION: The management of patients with COVID-19 related respiratory failure can be challenging due to prolonged ventilator dependency. In our initial experience, outcomes post-tracheostomy in this population are encouraging, with short time to liberation from the ventilator, a high rate of decannulation prior to hospital discharge, and similar mortality to tracheostomy performed for other indications. Barriers to weaning ventilation in this cohort may be high sedation needs and ventilator dyssynchrony. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V-Therapeutic/care management.

A National Study of Emergency Thoracotomy for Trauma.

INTRODUCTION: The role of resuscitative thoracotomy in the emergency department (ED) for patients that have suffered severe thoracoabdominal trauma has been the subject of much debate. Most studies that characterize emergency thoracotomy are from urban, academic, and trauma centers. We sought to describe patient and hospital characteristics of a nationally representative sample of ED thoracotomy (EDT). METHODS: The health-care cost and utilization project 2013 National ED Sample (NEDS) and the 2013 National Inpatient Sample (NIS) maintained by the agency for health-care research and quality were used to generate a nationally representative estimate of resuscitative thoracotomies performed in the ED. We obtained patient demographics and clinical characteristics and compared the descriptive statistics of the two datasets. RESULTS: The NEDS dataset identified 124 unsuccessful EDTs, whereas the NIS dataset identified 77 admissions for thoracotomy. When weighted to create a national estimate, these represent 952 emergency thoracotomies performed in the US in 2013. Most were male (82.5% and 88.2% in NEDS and NIS, respectively). In addition, 32.9% and 36.4% in NEDS and NIS, respectively, were between the ages of 20 and 29. The majority of thoracotomies were performed at metropolitan teaching hospitals (64.2% and 75.3%, NEDS and NIS, respectively). The mean total ED charges for patients who had an unsuccessful thoracotomy were $32,664 and the mean total inpatient charges were $141,215. CONCLUSION: Nearly 1000 thoracotomies are performed annually on the day of presentation to U. S. hospitals. Although emergency thoracotomy for trauma is an infrequently performed procedure, it almost always occurs at an urban, high volume, and level I or level II trauma centers.

The preoperative risk tool SURPAS accurately predicts outcomes in emergency surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) uses eight variables to accurately predict postoperative complications but has not been sufficiently studied in emergency surgery. We evaluated SURPAS in emergency surgery, comparing it to the Emergency Surgery Score (ESS). METHODS: SURPAS and ESS estimates of 30-day mortality and overall morbidity were calculated for emergency operations in the 2009-2018 ACS-NSQIP database and compared using observed-to-expected plots and rates, c-indices, and Brier scores. Cases with incomplete data were excluded. RESULTS: In 205,318 emergency patients, SURPAS underestimated (8.1%; 35.9%) while ESS overestimated (10.1%; 43.8%) observed mortality and morbidity (8.9%; 38.8%). Each showed good calibration on observed-to-expected plots. SURPAS had better c-indices (0.855 vs 0.848 mortality; 0.802 vs 0.755 morbidity), while the Brier score was better for ESS for mortality (0.0666 vs. 0.0684) and for SURPAS for morbidity (0.1772 vs. 0.1950). CONCLUSIONS: SURPAS accurately predicted mortality and morbidity in emergency surgery using eight predictor variables.

A comparison of the new, parsimonious tool Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS) to the American College of Surgeons (ACS) risk calculator in emergency surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System accurately predicts postoperative complications in elective surgery using only 8 preoperative variables, but its performance in emergency surgery has not been evaluated. We hypothesized that the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System accurately predicts postoperative complications in emergency surgery and compared its performance to that of the American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator. METHODS: We calculated the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System and the American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator risk estimates in a random sample of 1,010 emergency surgery cases from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2014 to 2017 database. Risk estimates were compared with known outcomes. Analyses included the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit graphs and P values, c-indexes, and Brier scores. RESULTS: Results were similar between the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System and the American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator for mortality, urinary tract infection, cardiac, venous thromboembolism, and renal complications. The American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator underestimated morbidity compared with the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (16.04% American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator vs 24.88% Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System vs 24.3% observed). Both calculators overestimated readmission (7.67% American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator vs 5.18% Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System vs 4.1% observed). CONCLUSION: Both calculators predicted mortality, urinary tract infection, cardiac, venous thromboembolism, and renal complications well, but readmissions relatively poorly. The Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System estimated overall morbidity accurately, while the American College of Surgeons Surgical Risk Calculator underestimated this risk.