Risk Factors for Perforated Appendicitis in the Acute Care Surgery Era-Minimizing the Patient's Delayed Presentation Factor.

BACKGROUND: Numerous factors contribute to advanced disease or increased complications in patients with acute appendicitis (AA). This study aimed to identify risk factors associated with AA perforation, including the effect of system time (ST) delay, after controlling for patient time (PT) delay. In this study, PT was controlled (to less than or equal to 24 h) to better understand the effect of ST delay on AA perforation. METHODS: Medical records of patients who underwent surgery for AA at a tertiary referral hospital from October 2009 through September 2013 were reviewed. Data collected included demographics, body mass index, presence of fecalith, PT (i.e., duration of time from symptom onset to arrival in emergency department), and ST (i.e., duration of time from arrival in emergency department to operating room). AA was classified as simple (acute, nonperforated) versus advanced (gangrenous, perforated). RESULTS: Seven hundred forty-seven patients underwent surgery for AA. After excluding patients with PT > 24 h, 445 patients fit the study criteria, of which 358 patients with simple AA and 87 patients with advanced disease. Advanced appendicitis patients were older and had higher body mass index, longer PT, higher WBC, and higher incidence of fecaliths. Both groups had similar ST. Risk factors for advanced appendicitis after multiple regression analysis are age >50 y old, WBC >15,000, the presence of fecaliths, and PT delay >12 h. CONCLUSIONS: Once PT delay was limited to ≤24 h, the ST delay of >12 h did not adversely affect the incidence of advanced AA. Age >50 y, WBC >15,000, PT delay >12 h, and the presence of fecaliths were identified as risk factors associated with advanced AA.

Comparing Outcomes Between "Pull" Versus "Push" Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy in Acute Care Surgery: Under-Reported Pull Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Incidence of Tube Dislodgement.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) complications are often under-reported in the literature, especially regarding the incidence of tube dislodgement (TD). TD can cause significant morbidity depending on its timing. We compared outcomes between "push" and "pull" PEGs. We hypothesized that push PEGs, because of its T-fasteners and balloon tip, would have a lower incidence of TD and complications compared with pull PEGs. METHODS: We performed a chart review of our prospectively maintained acute care surgery database for patients who underwent PEG tube placement from July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2013. Data regarding age, gender, body mass index, indications (trauma versus nontrauma), and complications (including TD) were extracted. Procedure-related complications were classified as either major if patients required an operative intervention or minor if they did not. We compared outcomes between pull PEG and push PEG. Multiple regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors associated with major complications. RESULTS: During the 4-y study period, 264 patients underwent pull PEGs and 59 underwent push PEGs. Age, gender, body mass index, and indications were similar between the two groups. The overall complications (major and minor) were similar (20% pull versus 22% push, P = 0.61). The incidence of TD was also similar (12% pull versus 9% push, P = 0.49). However, TD associated with major complications was higher in pull PEGs but was not statistically significant (6% pull versus 2% push, P = 0.21). Multiple regression analysis showed that dislodged pull PEG was associated with major complications (odds ratio 29.5; 95% confidence interval, 11.3-76.9; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of pull PEG TD associated with major complications is under-recognized. Specific measures should be undertaken to help prevent pull PEG TD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, therapeutic.

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.