Follow-up after major traumatic injury: a survey of services in Australian and New Zealand public hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Increased survival from traumatic injury has led to a higher demand for follow-up care when patients are discharged from hospital. It is currently unclear how follow-up care following major trauma is provided to patients, and how, when, and to whom follow-up services are delivered. The aim of this study was to describe the current follow-up care provided to patients and their families who have experienced major traumatic injury in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). METHODS: Informed by Donabedian's 'Evaluating the Quality of Medical Care' model and the Institute of Medicine's Six Domains of Healthcare Quality, a cross-sectional online survey was developed in conjunction with trauma experts. Their responses informed the final survey which was distributed to key personnel in 71 hospitals in Australia and New Zealand that (i) delivered trauma care to patients, (ii) provided data to the Australasian Trauma Registry, or (iii) were a Trauma Centre. RESULTS: Data were received from 38/71 (53.5%) hospitals. Most were Level 1 trauma centres (n = 23, 60.5%); 76% (n = 16) follow-up services were permanently funded. Follow-up services were led by a range of health professionals with over 60% (n = 19) identifying as trauma specialists. Patient inclusion criteria varied; only one service allowed self-referral (3.3%). Follow-up was within two weeks of acute care discharge in 53% (n = 16) of services. Care activities focused on physical health; psychosocial assessments were the least common. Most services provided care for adults and paediatric trauma (60.5%, n = 23); no service incorporated follow-up for family members. Evaluation of follow-up care was largely as part of a health service initiative; only three sites stated evaluation was specific to trauma follow-up. CONCLUSION: Follow-up care is provided by trauma specialists and predominantly focuses on the physical health of the patients affected by major traumatic injury. Variations exist in terms of patient selection, reason for follow-up and care activities delivered with gaps in the provision of psychosocial and family health services identified. Currently, evaluation of trauma follow-up care is limited, indicating a need for further development to ensure that the care delivered is safe, effective and beneficial to patients, families and healthcare organisations.

Self-harm presentations to hospital trauma centre emergency departments during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic raised concerns regarding increased suicide-related behaviours. We compared characteristics and counts of Emergency Department (ED) presentations for self-harm, an important suicide-related outcome, during versus prior to the pandemic's first year. We included patients presenting with self-harm to the ED of two trauma centres in Toronto, Canada. Time series models compared intra-pandemic (March 2020-February 2021) presentation counts to predictions from pre-pandemic data. The self-harm proportion of ED presentations was compared between the intra-pandemic period and preceding three years. A retrospective chart review of eligible patients seen from March 2019-February 2021 compared pre- vs. intra-pandemic patient and injury characteristics. While monthly intra-pandemic self-harm counts were largely within expected ranges, the self-harm proportion of total presentations increased. Being widowed (OR=9.46; 95 %CI=1.10-81.08), employment/financial stressors (OR=1.65, 95 %CI=1.06-2.58), job loss (OR=3.83; 95 %CI=1.36-10.76), and chest-stabbing self-harm (OR=2.50; 95 %CI=1.16-5.39) were associated with intra-pandemic presentations. Intra-pandemic self-harm was also associated with Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission (OR=2.18, 95 %CI=1.41-3.38). In summary, while the number of self-harm presentations to these trauma centres did not increase during the early pandemic, their proportion was increased. The association of intra-pandemic self-harm with variables indicating medically severe injury, economic stressors, and being widowed may inform future suicide and self-harm prevention strategies.

Level One Trauma Center Proliferation May Worsen Patient Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: From 2013 to 2020, Arizona state trauma system expanded from seven to thirteen level 1 trauma centers (L1TCs). This study utilized the state trauma registry to analyze the effect of L1TC proliferation on patient outcomes. METHODS: Adult patients age≥15 in the state trauma registry from 2007-2020 were queried for demographic, injury, and outcome variables. These variables were compared across the 2 time periods: 2007-2012 as pre-proliferation (PRE) and 2013-2020 as post-proliferation (POST). Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess independent predictors of mortality. Subgroup analyses were done for Injury Severity Score (ISS)≥15, age≥65, and trauma mechanisms. RESULTS: A total of 482,896 trauma patients were included in this study. 40% were female, 29% were geriatric patients, and 8.6% sustained penetrating trauma. The median ISS was 4. Inpatient mortality overall was 2.7%. POST consisted of more female, geriatric, and blunt trauma patients (P < .001). Both periods had similar median ISS. POST had more interfacility transfers (14.5% vs 10.3%, P < .001). Inpatient, unadjusted mortality decreased by .5% in POST (P < .001). After adjusting for age, gender, ISS, and trauma mechanism, being in POST was predictive of death (OR: 1.4, CI:1.3-1.5, P < .001). This was consistent across all subgroups except for geriatric subgroup, which there was no significant correlation. DISCUSSION: Despite advances in trauma care and almost doubling of L1TCs, POST had minimal reduction of unadjusted mortality and was an independent predictor of death. Results suggest increasing number of L1TCs alone may not improve mortality. Alternative approaches should be sought with future regional trauma system design and implementation.

Analyzing the Impact of Concomitant COVID-19 Infection on Outcomes in Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 infection at the time of traumatic injury remains understudied. Previous studies demonstrate that the rate of COVID-19 vaccination among trauma patients remains lower than in the general population. This study aims to understand the impact of concomitant COVID-19 infection on outcomes in trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients ≥18 years old admitted to a level I trauma center from March 2020 to December 2022. Patients tested for COVID-19 infection using a rapid antigen/PCR test were included. We matched patients using 2:1 propensity accounting for age, gender, race, comorbidities, vaccination status, injury severity score (ISS), type and mechanism of injury, and GCS at arrival. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), Intensive Care Unit (ICU) LOS, 30-day readmission, and major complications. RESULTS: Of the 4448 patients included, 168 (3.8%) were positive (COV+). Compared with COVID-19-negative (COV-) patients, COV+ patients were similar in age, sex, BMI, ISS, type of injury, and regional AIS. The proportion of White and non-Hispanic patients was higher in COV- patients. Following matching, 154 COV+ and 308 COV- patients were identified. COVID-19-positive patients had a higher rate of mortality (7.8% vs 2.6%; P = .010), major complications (15.6% vs 8.4%; P = .020), and thrombotic complications (3.9% vs .6%; P = .012). Patients also had a longer hospital LOS (median, 9 vs 5 days; P < .001) and ICU LOS (median, 5 vs 3 days; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection have higher mortality and morbidity in the matched population. Focused interventions aimed at recognizing this high-risk group and preventing COVID-19 infection within it should be undertaken.

Discrepancies in Mass Shootings and Access to Trauma Care Across the United States, 2014-2018.

INTRODUCTION: The United States has one of the highest rates of gun violence and mass shootings. Timely medical attention in such events is critical. The objective of this study was to assess geographic disparities in mass shootings and access to trauma centers. METHODS: Data for all Level I and II trauma centers were extracted from the American College of Surgeons and the Trauma Center Association of America registries. Mass shooting event data (4+ individuals shot at a single event) were taken from the Gun Violence Archive between 2014 and 2018. RESULTS: A total of 564 trauma centers and 1672 mass shootings were included. Ratios of the number of mass shootings vs trauma centers per state ranged from 0 to 11.0 mass shootings per trauma center. States with the greatest disparity (highest ratio) included Louisiana and New Mexico. CONCLUSION: States in the southern regions of the US experience the greatest disparity due to a high burden of mass shootings with less access to trauma centers. Interventions are needed to increase access to trauma care and reduce mass shootings in these medically underserved areas.

Changes in Patterns of Trauma Injuries in the Dakotas Region During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare impact of COVID-19 on trauma volume and characteristics on a set of trauma centers with a rural catchment area. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected different parts of the country quite differently, both in case volume and in local responses. State-wide responses have varied considerably, including variations in local mask mandates, school closures, and social distancing measures. METHODS: This was a retrospective trauma registry review of patients who were admitted to three of the tertiary care trauma centers in North and South Dakota between 2014 through 2022. RESULTS: In the analysis of 36,397 patients, we found a significant increase in trauma patient volume during the COVID-19 pandemic, with an increased percentage of patients presenting with a mechanism of injury secondary to abuse or assault. This increase in patient volume continued to rise during 2021 and 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted trauma center admissions in the rural and frontier Midwest differently from more urban areas, and the importance of including a variety of settings in trauma research.

Reducing low-value interhospital transfers for mild traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) were developed to stratify traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and improve health care utilization by selectively requiring repeat imaging, intensive care unit admission, and neurosurgical (NSG) consultation. The goal of this study is to assess safety and potential resource savings associated with the application of mBIG on interhospital patient transfers for TBI. METHODS: Adult patients with TBI transferred to our Level I trauma center from January 2017 to December 2022 meeting mBIG inclusion criteria were retrospectively stratified into mBIG1, mBIG2, and mBIG3 based on initial clinicoradiological factors. At the time, our institution routinely admitted patients with TBI and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) to the intensive care unit and obtained a repeat head computed tomography with NSG consultation, independent of TBI severity or changes in neurological examination. The primary outcome was progression of ICH on repeat imaging and/or NSG intervention. Secondary outcomes included length of stay and financial charges. Subgroup analysis on isolated TBI without significant extracranial injury was performed. RESULTS: Over the 6-year study period, 289 patients were classified into mBIG1 (61; 21.1%), mBIG2 (69; 23.9%), and mBIG3 (159; 55.0%). Of mBIG1 patients, 2 (2.9%) had radiological progression to mBIG2 without clinical decline, and none required NSG intervention. Of mBIG2, 2 patients (3.3%) progressed to mBIG3, and both required NSG intervention. More than 35% of transferred patients had minor isolated TBI. For mBIG1 and mBIG2, the median hospitalization charges per patient were $152,296 and $149,550, respectively, and the median length of stay was 4 and 5 days, respectively, with the majority downgraded from the intensive care unit within 48 hours. CONCLUSION: Clinically significant progression of ICH occurred infrequently in 1.5% of patients with mBIG1 and mBIG2 injuries. More than 35% of interfacility transfers for minor isolated TBI meeting mBIG1 and 2 criteria are low value and may potentially be safely deferred in an urban health care setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Teamwork matters: The association between nontechnical skills and cardiac arrest in trauma patients presenting with hypotension.

BACKGROUND: The impact of trauma team dynamics on outcomes in injured patients is not completely understood. We sought to evaluate the association between trauma team function, as measured by a modified Trauma Non-Technical Skills assessment, and cardiac arrest in hypotensive trauma patients. We hypothesized that better team function is associated with a decreased probability of developing cardiac arrest. METHODS: Trauma video review was used to collect data from resuscitations of adult hypotensive trauma patients at 19 centers. Hypotension at emergency department presentation was defined as an initial systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or an initial systolic blood pressure ≥90 mm Hg followed by a systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg within the first 5 minutes. Team dynamics were scored using a modified Trauma Non-Technical Skills assessment composed of 5 domains with combined scores ranging from 5 (best) to 15 (worst). Scores were compared between cardiac arrest/noncardiac arrest cases in the trauma bay. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the independent association between the Trauma Non-Technical Skills assessment and cardiac arrest. RESULTS: A total of 430 patients were included (median age 43 years [interquartile range: 29-61]; 71.8% male; 36% penetrating mechanism; median Injury Severity Score 20 [10-33]; 11% experienced cardiac arrest in trauma bay). The median total Trauma Non-Technical Skills assessment score was 7 (6-9), higher in patients who experienced cardiac arrest in the trauma bay (9 [6-10] vs 7 [6-9]; P = .016). This association persisted after controlling for age, sex, mechanism, injury severity, initial systolic blood pressure, and initial Glasgow Coma Scale score (adjusted odds ratio: 1.28; 95% confidence interval:1.11-1.48; P < .001), indicating a ∼3% higher predicted probability of cardiac arrest per Trauma Non-Technical Skills point. CONCLUSION: Better team function is independently associated with a decreased probability of cardiac arrest in trauma patients presenting with hypotension. This suggests that trauma team training may improve outcomes in peri-arrest patients.

Recent Changes in the Management of High-Grade Blunt Pancreatic Injury in Children: A Nationwide Trend Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal management of pediatric patients with high-grade blunt pancreatic injury (BPI) involving the main pancreatic duct remains controversial. This study aimed to assess the nationwide trends in the management of pediatric high-grade BPI at pediatric (PTC), mixed (MTC), and adult trauma centers (ATC). STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective observational study of the National Trauma Data Bank. We included pediatric patients (age 16 years or less) sustaining high-grade BPI (Abbreviated Injury Scale 3 or more) from 2011 to 2021. Patients who did not undergo pancreatic operation were categorized into the nonoperative management (NOM) group. Trauma centers were defined as PTC (level I/II pediatric only), MTC (level I/II adult and pediatric), and ATC (level I/II adult only). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients undergoing NOM, and secondary outcomes included the use of ERCP and in-hospital mortality. A Cochran-Armitage test was used to analyze the trend. RESULTS: A total of 811 patients were analyzed. The median age was 9 years (interquartile range 6 to 13), 64% were male patients, and the median injury severity score was 17 (interquartile range 10 to 25). During the study period, there was a significant upward linear trend in the use of NOM and ERCP among the overall cohort (range 48% to 66%; p trend = 0.033, range 6.1% to 19%; p trend = 0.030, respectively). The significant upward trend for NOM was maintained in the subgroup of patients at PTC and MTC (p trend = 0.037), whereas no significant trend was observed at ATC (p trend = 0.61). There was no significant trend in in-hospital mortality (p trend = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: For the management of pediatric patients with high-grade BPI, this study found a significant trend toward increasing use of NOM and ERCP without mortality deterioration, especially at PTC and MTC.

Influence of COVID-19 pandemic on hospitalisations at a paediatric traumatology department during 2020: a single-centre observational study and comprehensive literature review.

PURPOSE: The study investigates changes in the injury characteristics of hospitalised children in a paediatric trauma centre during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Data from injured children from the pre-pandemic year 2019 were compared to the pandemic year 2020 using Pearson's chi-squared test and the Mann-Whitney U test. The period of highly restrictive regulations (HRP) was evaluated separately. A comprehensive literature review with defined search terms resulted in a descriptive data synthesis. RESULTS: Data from 865 patients indicated reductions in admissions of 5.6% and 54.4% during the HRP. In 2020, the hospitalisation time was longer (2.2 ± 2.7 days in 2019 vs. 2.4 ± 2.6 in 2020, p = 0.045); the proportions of wounds requiring surgical therapy (p = 0.008) and of observational treatments, primarily for mild brain injuries (p = 0.046), were higher; and conservative treatments, primarily for contusions, were lower (p = 0.005). There were no significant changes in age, location of lesions, or frequency of surgical therapy; nor were there differences in the HRP, except for fewer injuries in school and kindergarten (p < 0.001). The literature review summarises the main results of 79 studies. CONCLUSION: Limited resources did not alter the indications for surgical therapy. Further studies should examine whether the more common injuries sustained at home were caused by excessive work/childcare demands on parents. Reduced inpatient conservative treatment implies that hospital resources possibly were overused previously. The literature offers answers to many detailed questions regarding childhood injuries during a pandemic and more efficient safe treatment. Registration Ethical committee of RWTH Aachen University EK 22-320; Center for Translational & Clinical Research RWTH Aachen University (CTC-A) 21-430.

Does frailty impact failure-to-rescue in geriatric trauma patients?

BACKGROUND: Failure-to-rescue (FTR), defined as death following a major complication, is a metric of trauma quality. The impact of patient frailty on FTR has not been fully investigated, especially in geriatric trauma patients. This study hypothesized that frailty increased the risk of FTR in geriatric patients with severe injury. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the TQIP database between 2015 and 2019, including geriatric patients with trauma (age ≥65 years) and an Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15, who survived ≥48 hours postadmission. Frailty was assessed using the modified 5-item frailty index (mFI). Patients were categorized into frail (mFI ≥ 2) and nonfrail (mFI < 2) groups. Logistic regression analysis and a generalized additive model (GAM) were used to examine the association between FTR and patient frailty after controlling for age, sex, type of injury, trauma center level, ISS, and vital signs on admission. RESULTS: Among 52,312 geriatric trauma patients, 34.6% were frail (mean mFI: frail: 2.3 vs. nonfrail: 0.9, p < 0.001). Frail patients were older (age, 77 vs. 74 years, p < 0.001), had a lower ISS (19 vs. 21, p < 0.001), and had a higher incidence of FTR compared with nonfrail patients (8.7% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.006). Logistic regression analysis revealed that frailty was an independent predictor of FTR (odds ratio, 1.32; confidence interval, 1.23-1.44; p < 0.001). The GAM plots showed a linear increase in FTR incidence with increasing mFI after adjusting for confounders. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that frailty independently contributes to an increased risk of FTR in geriatric trauma patients. The impact of patient frailty should be considered when using FTR to measure the quality of trauma care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures for flail chest: Analysis of center-based variability in practice and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Given the lack of high-quality data on patient selection for surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF), significant variability in practice likely exists across trauma centers. We aimed to determine whether centers with a more liberal approach to SSRF had improved outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with flail chest admitted to Level I or II trauma centers participating in the American College of Surgeons' Trauma Quality Improvement Program. The primary outcome was hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included discharge status, tracheostomy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and hospital length of stay. Logistic regression was performed to calculate center-level observed/expected rates of SSRF and centers were grouped into quintiles from "most liberal" to "most restrictive." Multivariable regression was used to determine the association between these quintiles and outcomes. We also used an instrumental variable analysis to evaluate the association between SSRF and mortality at the patient level. RESULTS: Among 23,619 patients with flail chest across 354 centers, 22% underwent SSRF. Center rates of fixation ranged from 0% to 88%. Higher rates of SSRF were not associated with lower mortality overall (highest vs. lowest quintile: odds ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-1.17). However, centers with a more liberal approach to SSRF had lower rates of independent status at discharge, higher tracheostomy rates, longer duration of mechanical ventilation, and longer hospital and ICU length of stay. The patient level analysis demonstrated that SSRF as was associated with a 25% lower risk of death. CONCLUSION: Overall, centers with a liberal approach to SSRF do not show improved outcomes among patients with a flail chest, but have higher resource utilization. Results at the patient level suggest that there is a population likely to benefit but these patients remain to be identified through further research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Does the injury pattern drive the surgical treatment strategy in multiply injured patients with major fractures?

BACKGROUND: The timing of definitive surgery in multiple injured patients remains a topic of debate, and multiple concepts have been described. Although these included injury severity as a criterion to decide on the indications for surgery, none of them considered the influence of injury distributions. We analyzed whether injury distribution is associated with certain surgical strategies and related outcomes in a cohort of patients treated according to principles of early and safe fixation strategies. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, multiple injured patients were included if they were primarily admitted to a Level I trauma center, had an Injury Severity Score of ≥16 points, and required surgical intervention for major injuries and fractures. The primary outcome measure was treatment strategy. The treatment strategy was classified according to the timing of definitive surgery after injury: early total care (ETC, <24 hours), safe definitive surgery (SDS, <48 hours), and damage control (DC, >48 hours). Statistics included univariate and multivariate analyses of mortality and the association of injury distributions and surgical tactics. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2022, 1,471 patients were included (mean ± SD age, 55.6 ± 20.4 years; mean Injury Severity Score, 23.1 ± 11.4). The group distribution was as follows: ETC, n = 85 (5.8%); SDS, n = 665 (45.2%); and DC, n = 721 (49.0%); mortality was 22.4% in ETC, 16.1% in SDS, and 39.7% in DC. Severe nonlethal abdominal injuries (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-3.5) and spinal injuries (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.2) were associated with ETC, while multiple extremity injuries were associated with SDS (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.4-2.2). Severe traumatic brain injury was associated with DC (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4). When a correction for the severity of head, abdominal, spinal, and extremity injuries, as well as differences in the values of admission pathophysiologic parameters were undertaken, the mortality was 30% lower in the SDS group when compared with the DC group (OR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.2-0.4). CONCLUSION: Major spinal injuries and certain abdominal injuries, if identified as nonlethal, trigger definitive surgeries in the initial setting. In contrast, severe TBI was associated with delayed fracture care. Patients with major fractures and other injuries were treated by SDS (definitive care, <48 hours) when the pathophysiological response was adequate. The choice of a favorable surgical treatment appears to depend on injury patterns and physiological patient responses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment for Pediatric Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury.

Importance: The decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment for pediatric patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) is challenging for clinicians and families with limited evidence quantifying existing practices. Given the lack of standardized clinical guidelines, variable practice patterns across trauma centers seem likely. Objective: To evaluate the factors influencing decisions to withdraw life-sustaining treatment across North American trauma centers for pediatric patients with severe TBI and to quantify any existing between-center variability in withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data collected from 515 trauma centers through the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program between 2017 and 2020. Pediatric patients younger than 19 years with severe TBI and a documented decision for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment were included. Data were analyzed from January to May 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: A random intercept multilevel logistic regression model was used to quantify patient, injury, and hospital characteristics associated with the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment; the median odds ratio was used to characterize residual between-center variability. Centers were ranked by their conditional random intercepts and quartile-specific adjusted mortalities were computed. Results: A total of 9803 children (mean [SD] age, 12.6 [5.7]; 2920 [29.8%] female) with severe TBI were identified, 1003 of whom (10.2%) had a documented decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. Patient-level factors associated with an increase in likelihood of withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment were young age (younger than 3 years), higher severity intracranial and extracranial injuries, and mechanism of injury related to firearms. Following adjustment for patient and hospital attributes, the median odds ratio was 1.54 (95% CI, 1.46-1.62), suggesting residual variation in withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment between centers. When centers were grouped into quartiles by their propensity for withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, adjusted mortality was higher for fourth-quartile compared to first-quartile centers (odds ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.45-1.88). Conclusions and Relevance: Several patient and injury factors were associated with withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment decision-making for pediatric patients with severe TBI in this study. Variation in withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment practices between trauma centers was observed after adjustment for case mix; this variation was associated with differences in risk-adjusted mortality rates. Taken together, these findings highlight the presence of inconsistent approaches to withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in children, which speaks to the need for guidelines to address this significant practice pattern variation.

Injury Patterns and Treatment Strategies in Civilian and Military Isolated Abdominal Gunshot Wounds.

BACKGROUND: Combat-related gunshot wounds (GSW) may differ from those found in civilian trauma centers. Missile velocity, resources, logistics, and body armor may affect injury patterns and management strategies. This study compares injury patterns, management, and outcomes in isolated abdominal GSW between military (MIL) and civilian (CIV) populations. METHODS: The Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR) and TQIP databases were queried for patients with isolated abdominal GSW from 2013 to 2016. MIL patients were propensity score matched 1:3 based on age, sex, and extraabdominal AIS. Injury patterns and in-hospital outcomes were compared. Initial operative management strategies, including selective nonoperative management (SNOM) for isolated solid organ injuries, were also compared. RESULTS: Of the 6435 patients with isolated abdominal GSW, 183 (3%) MIL were identified and matched with 549 CIV patients. The MIL group had more hollow viscus injuries (84% vs. 66%) while the CIV group had more vascular injuries (10% vs. 21%) (p < .05 for both). Operative strategy differed, with more MIL patients undergoing exploratory laparotomy (95% vs. 82%) and colectomy (72% vs. 52%) (p < .05 for both). However, no difference in ostomy creation was appreciated. More SNOM for isolated solid organ injuries was performed in the CIV group (34.1% vs. 12.5%; p < 0.05). In-hospital outcomes, including mortality, were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: MIL abdominal GSW lead to higher rates of hollow viscus injuries compared to CIV GSW. MIL GSW are more frequently treated with resection but with similar ostomy creation compared to civilian GSW. SNOM of solid organ injuries is infrequently performed following MIL GSW.

A comparative study of hip fracture care and outcomes in major trauma centres versus trauma units.

INTRODUCTION: There is good evidence to support that major trauma networks significantly reduce morbidity and mortality in severely injured patients. However, following the introduction of major trauma centres (MTCs) in England in 2012, early concerns were raised regarding the effect on hip fracture patients. The aim of our study was to review data from the National Hip Fracture Database for fractured neck of femur (FNOF) patients, comparing patient outcomes between MTCs and trauma units (TUs), and the national regions of the UK. METHODS: NHFD data from 2018 for all hospitals in England, Wales and NI was collected using the charts and dashboards available online. We recorded data for the following outcomes: time to surgery, acute hospital length of stay, overall hospital length of stay, discharge to original residence within 120 days, crude 30-day mortality and adjusted 30-day mortality. We conducted a one-way ANOVA test to calculate statistical differences for each outcome measure by MTC vs TU and then separately for the regions of the UK divided into England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NI). RESULTS: Data for 175 hospitals are included in this study; 22 of which were MTCs. The total number of operative cases were 65,848. 9668 of these occurred in MTC compared to 56,180 in TUs. This equates to an annual average of 439 per MTC and 367 per TU. Despite this, there was no statistically significant difference observed in all outcomes for MTC vs TU. Patients in NI waited longer for their surgery (60.3 h, p < 0.001), whilst patients in Wales had the longest overall hospital length of stay (31.6 days, p < 0.001). However, there was no difference in patients' crude 30-day mortality (p = 0.480) or adjusted 30-day mortality (p = 0.191). CONCLUSION: These findings are reassuring for MTCs in England. We found no evidence to suggest that FNOF patients are treated inferiorly, or have worse outcomes, at MTCs vs TUs. FNOF patients in NI waited longer for their surgery but this did not have any significant difference on 30-day mortality rates. The care of FNOF patients in NI may warrant further study.

Changes in the characteristics of trauma patients after the early COVID-19 outbreak: A retrospective study of a regional level 1 trauma center in Republic of Korea.

ABSTRACT: Gyeonggi-do (Gyeonggi province) has the second highest number of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) cases in the Republic of Korea after Seoul, with approximately 25% of the COVID-19 patients as of January 2021. Our center is a level I trauma center located in south Gyeonggi-do, and we aimed to evaluate whether the characteristics of trauma patients changed after the COVID-19 pandemic.We retrospectively reviewed the trauma patients registered with the Korea Trauma Database of the Center from February 2019 to January 2021. The patients were dichotomized into pre-coronavirus disease (pre-COVID) and coronavirus disease (COVID) groups, and their trauma volumes, injury characteristics, intentionality, and outcomes were compared.A total of 2628 and 2636 patients were included in the pre-COVID and COVID groups, respectively. During the COVID-19 period, motorcycle accidents, bicycle accidents, and penetrating injury cases increased, and pedestrian traffic accidents, slips, and injury by machines decreased. The average daily number of patients in the COVID group was lower in March (5.6 ±â€Š2.6/day vs 7.2 ±â€Š2.4/day, P = .014) and higher in September (9.9 ±â€Š3.2/day vs 7.7 ±â€Š2.0/day, P = .003) compared to the pre-COVID group. The COVID group also had a higher ratio of direct admissions (67.5% vs 57.2%, P < .001), proportion of suicidal patients (4.1% vs 2.7%, P = .005), and injury severity scores (14 [9-22] vs 12 [4-22], P < .001) than the pre-COVID group. The overall mortality (4.7% vs 4.9%, P = .670) and intensive care unit length of stay (2 [0-3] days vs 2 [0-4] days, P = .153) was not different between the 2 groups.Although the total number of patients did not change, the COVID-19 pandemic affected the number of monthly admissions and the injury mechanisms changed. More severely injured patients were admitted directly to the trauma center.

Interhospital Variations in Resource Use Intensity for In-hospital Injury Deaths: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate interhospital variation in resource use for in-hospital injury deaths. BACKGROUND: Significant variation in resource use for end-of-life care has been observed in the US for chronic diseases. However, there is an important knowledge gap on end-of-life resource use for trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of injury deaths following hospitalization in any of the 57 trauma centers in a Canadian trauma system (2013-2016). Resource use intensity was measured using activity-based costing (2016 $CAN) according to time of death (72 h, 3-14 d, ≥14 d). We used multilevel log-linear regression to model resource use and estimated interhospital variation using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). RESULTS: Our study population comprised 2044 injury deaths. Variation in resource use between hospitals was observed for all 3 time frames (ICC = 6.5%, 6.6%, and 5.9% for < 72 h, 3-14 d, and ≥14 d, respectively). Interhospital variation was stronger for allied health services (ICC = 18 to 26%), medical imaging (ICC = 4 to 10%), and the ICU (ICC = 5 to 6%) than other activity centers. We observed stronger interhospital variation for patients < 65 years of age (ICC = 11 to 34%) than those ≥65 (ICC = 5 to 6%) and for traumatic brain injury (ICC = 5 to 13%) than other injuries (ICC = 1 to 8%). CONCLUSIONS: We observed variation in resource use intensity for injury deaths across trauma centers. Strongest variation was observed for younger patients and those with traumatic brain injury. Results may reflect variation in level of care decisions and the incidence of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies.

Thrombelastography and transfusion patterns in severely injured pediatric trauma patients with blunt solid organ injuries.

BACKGROUND: Thrombelastography (TEG) has emerged as a useful tool to diagnose coagulopathy and guide blood product usage during trauma resuscitations. This study sought to evaluate the correlation between TEG-directed blood product administration in severely injured pediatric trauma patients with blunt solid organ injuries (BSOIs). METHODS: Patients (≤18 years) with severe BSOIs who presented as highest-level trauma activations at two pediatric trauma centers were included. Thrombelastography results were evaluated to determine indications for blood product administration and rates of TEG-directed resuscitation. Tetrachoric correlations and regression modeling were used to correlate TEG-directed resuscitation with clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of 64 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 32.8% (21) had elevated R times and 23.4% (15) had shortened α angles. Maximum amplitude was shortened in 29.7% (19), and percent clot lysis 30 minutes after maximum amplitude that is >3% was seen in 17.0% (9). Thrombelastography-directed resuscitation of fresh frozen plasma was followed 54.7% of the time compared with 67.2% and 81.2% for platelets and cryoprecipitate, respectively. Thrombelastography-directed resuscitation with platelets (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.93; p = 0.03) and/or cryoprecipitate (odds ratio, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.01-0.42, p = 0.003) were associated with decreased hospital length of stay and mortality, respectively. CONCLUSION: Severely injured pediatric trauma patients with BSOIs were often coagulopathic upon presentation to the emergency department. Thrombelastography-directed resuscitation with platelets and/or cryoprecipitate was followed for the majority of patients and was associated with improved outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, level III.

Rapid detection of platelet inhibition and dysfunction in traumatic brain injury: A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid platelet function testing is frequently used to determine platelet function in patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICH). Accuracy and clinical significance of decreased platelet response detected by these tests is not well understood. We sought to determine whether VerifyNow and whole blood aggregometry (WBA) can detect poor platelet response and to elucidate its clinical significance for tICH patients. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with isolated tICH between 2018 and 2020. Demographics, medical history, injury characteristics, and patient outcomes were recorded. Platelet function was determined by VerifyNow and WBA testing at the time of arrival to the trauma bay and 6 hours later. RESULTS: A total of 221 patients were enrolled, including 111 patients on no antiplatelet medication, 78 on aspirin, 6 on clopidogrel, and 26 on aspirin and clopidogrel. In the trauma bay, 29.7% and 67.7% of patients on no antiplatelet medication had poor platelet response on VerifyNow and WBA, respectively. Among patients on aspirin, 72.2% and 82.2% had platelet dysfunction on VerifyNow and WBA. Among patients on clopidogrel, 67.9% and 88.9% had platelet dysfunction on VerifyNow and WBA. Patients with nonresponsive platelets had similar in-hospital mortality (3 [3.0%] vs. 6 [6.3%], p = 0.324), tICH progression (26 [27.1%] vs. 24 [26.1%], p = 0.877), intensive care unit admission rates (34 [34.3%] vs. 38 [40.0%), p = 0.415), and length of stay (3 [interquartile range, 2-8] vs. 3.2 [interquartile range, 2-7], p = 0.818) to those with responsive platelets. Platelet transfusion did not improve platelet response or patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Rapid platelet function testing detects a highly prevalent poor platelet response among patients with tICH, irrespective of antiplatelet medication use. VerifyNow correlated fairly with whole blood aggregometry among patients with tICH and platelet responsiveness detectable by these tests did not correlate with clinical outcomes. In addition, our results suggest that platelet transfusion may not improve clinical outcomes in patients with tICH. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic tests, level II.