Whole blood for old blood: Use of whole blood for resuscitation in older trauma patients.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients are expected to comprise 40 % of trauma admissions in the next 30 years. The use of whole blood (WB) has shown promise in improving mortality while lowering the utilization of blood products. However, the use of WB in older trauma patients has not been examined. The objective of our study is to determine the safety and efficacy of a WB first transfusion strategy in injured older patients. METHODS: Older trauma patients, defined as age ≥55 years old, were reviewed from March 2016-November 2021. Patients that received a WB first resuscitation strategy were compared to those that received a ratio based component strategy. Demographics as well as complications rates, blood product transfusion volumes, and mortality were evaluated. Univariate and multivariable analysis was used to determine independent predictors of mortality. RESULTS: There were 388 older trauma patients that received any blood products during the study period. A majority of patients received a WB first resuscitation strategy (83 %). Compared to patients that received component therapy, patients that received WB first were more likely female, less likely to have a penetrating mechanism, and had a slightly lower injury severity score. The-30 day mortality rate was comparable (WB 36% vs component 37 %, p = 0.914). While rates of AKI were slightly higher in those that received WB, this did not result in increased rates of renal replacement therapy (3 % vs 2 %, p = 1). Further, compared to patients that received components, patients that were resuscitated with a WB first strategy significantly utilized lower median volumes of platelets (0 mL vs 197 mL, p < 0.001), median volumes of plasma (0 mL vs 1253 mL, p < 0.001, and median total volume of blood products (1000 mL vs 2859 mL, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of WB in the older trauma patient appears safe, with mortality and complication rates comparable to component therapy. Blood product utilization is significantly less in those that are resuscitated with WB first.

Impact of catastrophic brain injury guidelines on organ donation rates: Results of an EAST multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: One third of organ donors suffer catastrophic brain injury (CBI). There are no standard guidelines for the management of traumatic CBI prior to brain death, and not all trauma centers have institutional CBI guidelines. In addition, there is high variability in management between institutions with guidelines. Catastrophic brain injury guidelines vary and may include various combinations of hormone therapy, vasopressors, fluid resuscitation, and other practices. We hypothesized that centers with CBI guidelines have higher organ donation rates than those without. METHODS: This prospective, observational EAST-sponsored multicenter trial included adult (18+ years old) traumatic-mechanism CBI patients at 33 level I and II trauma centers from January 2022 to May 2023. Catastrophic brain injury was defined as a brain injury causing loss of function above the brain stem and subsequent death. Cluster analysis with linear mixed-effects model including UNOS regions and hospital size by bed count was used to determine whether CBI guidelines are associated with organ donation. RESULTS: A total of 790 CBI patients were included in this analysis. In unadjusted comparison, CBI guideline centers had higher rates of organ donation and use of steroids, whole blood, and hormone therapy. In a linear mixed-effects model, CBI guidelines were not associated with organ donation. Registered organ donor status, steroid hormones, and vasopressin were associated with increased relative risk of donation. CONCLUSION: There is high variability in management of CBI, even at centers with CBI guidelines in place. While the use of institutional CBI guidelines was not associated with increased organ donation, guidelines in this study were not identical. Hormone replacement with steroids and vasopressin was associated with increased donation. Hormone resuscitation is a common feature of CBI guidelines. Further analysis of individual practices that increase organ donation after CBI may allow for more effective guidelines and an overall increase in donation to decrease the long waiting periods for organ transplant recipients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic; Level III.

Undertriage Despite Use of Geriatric-Specific Trauma Team Activation Guidelines : Who Are We Missing?

BACKGROUND: Elderly trauma patients are at risk for undertriage, resulting in substantial morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to determine whether implementation of geriatric-specific trauma team activation (TTA) protocols appropriately identified severely-injured elderly patients. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study evaluated all severely injured (injury severity score [ISS] >15), geriatric (≥65 years) patients admitted to our Level 1 tertiary-care hospital between January 2014 and September 2017. Undertriage was defined as the lack of TTA despite presence of severe injuries. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes were mortality within 48 hours of admission and urgent hemorrhage control. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of appropriate triage in this study. RESULTS: Out of 1039 severely injured geriatric patients, 628 (61%) did not undergo TTA. Undertriaged patients were significantly older and had more comorbidities. In-hospital mortality was 5% and 31% in the undertriaged and appropriately triaged groups, respectively (P < .0001). One percent of undertriaged patients needed urgent hemorrhage control, compared to 6% of the appropriately triaged group (P < .0001). One percent of undertriaged patients died within 48 hours compared to 19% in the appropriately triaged group (P < .0001). Predictors of appropriate triage include GCS, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, lactic acid, ISS, shock, and absence of dementia, stroke, or alcoholism. DISCUSSION: Geriatric-specific TTA guidelines continue to undertriage elderly trauma patients when using ISS as a metric to measure undertriage. However, undertriaged patients have much lower morbidity and mortality, suggesting the geriatric-specific TTA guidelines identify those patients at highest risk for poor outcomes.

Right Patient, Right Place, Right Time : Field Triage and Transfer to Level I Trauma Centers.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to compare outcomes of trauma patients taken directly from the field to a Level I trauma center (direct) versus patients that were first brought to a Level III trauma center prior to being transferred to a Level I (transfer) within our inclusive Delaware trauma system. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Level I center's trauma registry was performed using data from 2013 to 2017 for patients brought to a single Level I trauma center from 2 surrounding counties. The direct cohort consisted of 362 patients, while the transfer cohort contained 204 patients. Linear regression analysis was performed to investigate hospital length of stay (LOS), while logistic regression was used for mortality, complications, and craniotomy. Covariates included age, gender, county, and injury severity score (ISS). Propensity score weighting was also performed between the direct and transfer cohorts. RESULTS: When adjusting for age, gender, ISS, and county, transferred patients demonstrated worse outcomes compared with direct patients in both the regression and propensity score analyses. Transferred patients were at increased risk of mortality (odds ratio [OR] 2.17, CI 1.10-4.37, P = .027) and craniotomy (OR 3.92, CI 1.87-8.72, P < .001). Age was predictive of mortality (P < .001). ISS was predictive of increased risk of mortality (P < .001), increased LOS (P < .001), and craniotomy (P < .001). Older age, Sussex County, and higher ISS were predictive of patients being transferred (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Delays in the presentation to our Level I trauma center resulted in worse outcomes. Patients that meet criteria should be considered for transport directly to the highest level trauma center in the system to avoid delays in care.

Right Patient, Right Place, Right Time: Field Triage and Transfer to Level I Trauma Centers.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to compare the outcomes of trauma patients taken directly from the field to a level I trauma center (direct) versus patients that were first brought to a level III trauma center prior to being transferred to a level I (transfer) within our inclusive Delaware trauma system. METHODS: A retrospective review of the level I center's trauma registry was performed using data from 2013 to 2017 for patients brought to a single level I trauma center from two surrounding counties. The direct cohort consisted of 362 patients, while the transfer cohort contained 204 patients. Linear regression analysis was performed to investigate hospital length of stay (LOS), while logistic regression was used for mortality, complications, and craniotomy. Covariates included age, gender, county, and injury severity score (ISS). Propensity score weighting was also performed between the direct and transfer cohorts. RESULTS: When adjusting for age, gender, ISS, and county, transferred patients demonstrated worse outcomes compared to direct patients in both the regression and propensity score analyses. Transferred patients were at increased risk of mortality (OR 2.17, CI 1.10-4.37, P = .027) and craniotomy (OR 3.92, CI 1.87-8.72, P < .001). Age was predictive of mortality (P < .001). ISS was predictive of increased risk of mortality (P < .001), increased LOS (P < .001), and craniotomy (P < .001). Older age, Sussex County, and higher ISS were predictive of patients being transferred (P < .001). DISCUSSION: Delays in presentation to our level I trauma center resulted in worse outcomes. Patients that meet criteria should be considered for transport directly to the highest level trauma center in the system to avoid delays in care.