AAST multicenter prospective analysis of prehospital tourniquet use for extremity trauma.

BACKGROUND: Tourniquet use for extremity hemorrhage control has seen a recent increase in civilian usage. Previous retrospective studies demonstrated that tourniquets improve outcomes for major extremity trauma (MET). No prospective study has been conducted to date. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes in MET patients with prehospital tourniquet use. We hypothesized that prehospital tourniquet use in MET decreases the incidence of patients arriving to the trauma center in shock. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively for adult patients with MET at 26 Level I and 3 Level II trauma centers from 2015 to 2020. Limbs with tourniquets applied in the prehospital setting were included in the tourniquet group and limbs without prehospital tourniquets were enrolled in the control group. RESULTS: A total of 1,392 injured limbs were enrolled with 1,130 tourniquets, including 962 prehospital tourniquets. The control group consisted of 262 limbs without prehospital tourniquets and 88 with tourniquets placed upon hospital arrival. Prehospital improvised tourniquets were placed in 42 patients. Tourniquets effectively controlled bleeding in 87.7% of limbs. Tourniquet and control groups were similarly matched for demographics, Injury Severity Score, and prehospital vital signs (p > 0.05). Despite higher limb injury severity, patients in the tourniquet group were less likely to arrive in shock compared with the control group (13.0% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.04). The incidence of limb complications was not significantly higher in the tourniquet group (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study is the first prospective analysis of prehospital tourniquet use for civilian extremity trauma. Prehospital tourniquet application was associated with decreased incidence of arrival in shock without increasing limb complications. We found widespread tourniquet use, high effectiveness, and a low number of improvised tourniquets. This study provides further evidence that tourniquets are being widely and safely adopted to improve outcomes in civilians with MET. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Impact of the Affordable Care Act on trauma and emergency general surgery: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Trauma and emergency general surgery (EGS) patients who are uninsured have worse outcomes as compared with insured patients. Partially modeled after the 2006 Massachusetts Healthcare Reform (MHR), the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 with the goal of expanding health insurance coverage, primarily through state-based Medicaid expansion (ME). We evaluated the impact of ME and MHR on outcomes for trauma patients, EGS patients, and trauma systems. METHODS: This study was approved by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Guidelines Committee. Using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology, we defined three populations of interest (trauma patients, EGS patients, and trauma systems) and identified the critical outcomes (mortality, access to care, change in insurance status, reimbursement, funding). We performed a systematic review of the literature. Random effect meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were calculated for outcomes with sufficient data. RESULTS: From 4,593 citations, we found 18 studies addressing all seven predefined outcomes of interest for trauma patients, three studies addressing six of seven outcomes for EGS patients, and three studies addressing three of eight outcomes for trauma systems. On meta-analysis, trauma patients were less likely to be uninsured after ME or MHR (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.66). These coverage expansion policies were not associated with a change in the odds of inpatient mortality for trauma (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.05). Emergency general surgery patients also experienced a significant insurance coverage gains and no change in inpatient mortality. Insurance expansion was often associated with increased access to postacute care at discharge. The evidence for trauma systems was heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: Given the evidence quality, we conditionally recommend ME/MHR to improve insurance coverage and access to postacute care for trauma and EGS patients. We have no specific recommendation with respect to the impact of ME/MHR on trauma systems. Additional research into these questions is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Review, Economic/Decision, level III.

Impact of Device-Associated Infection on Trauma Patient Outcomes at a Major Trauma Center.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) are considered performance measures. We analyzed the incidence, prevalence, and risk of CAUTI and VAP in trauma patients, as well as the demographic and injury factors related to these infections and their relative risks of negative outcomes (prolonged length of stay [LOS], sepsis, and death). METHODS: Trauma registry data were analyzed (age >18 y; LOS >24 h) from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2011. Demographics and injury location, severity, and type were analyzed relative to outcomes along with device-associated infection, as defined by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The outcomes analyzed were intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital LOS, sepsis, and in-hospital death. Multivariable logistic regression was then used to identify the factors contributing to sepsis, including device-associated infections. RESULTS: The included population (n=10,755) was 66.6% male and had a mean age of 45.1 y, with blunt trauma in 91.8% and a median Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 10 points. Patients developing CAUTI (n=324; 3.0%; p<0.005) were more likely to be female (59.4%), had a higher median ISS (20.5), and were older (56.7 years). Patients with VAP (n=161; 1.5%; p<0.005) had a higher median ISS (27). Patients with sepsis (n=149; 1.4%; p<0.005) had a higher median ISS (24.0) and were older (52.3 y). Sepsis was associated with prolonged LOS and death, as expected (p<0.005). In multivariable analysis, independent predictors of sepsis were CAUTI (odds ratio [OR] 16.15; p<0.001), VAP (OR 6.95; p<0.001), ISS (OR 1.05 per unit; p<0.001), age (OR 1.02 per year; p<0.001), and penetrating, abdominal, pelvic, or chest injury. CONCLUSION: Development of CAUTI and VAP are significantly associated with a higher risk of sepsis in trauma patients after adjustment for age and injury type, location, and severity. This study suggests the importance of device-associated infections as vectors for sepsis in trauma and highlights the importance of prevention initiatives.

Influence of in-house attending presence on trauma outcomes and hospital efficiency.

BACKGROUND: The influence of in-house (IH) attendings on trauma patient survival and efficiency measures, such as emergency department length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, and hospital LOS, has been debated for more than 20 years. No study has definitively shown improved outcomes with IH vs home-call attendings. This study examines trauma outcomes in a single, Level I trauma center before and after the institution of IH attending call. STUDY DESIGN: Patient data were collected from the University of Kentucky's trauma registry. Based on the Trauma-Related Injury Severity Score, survival rates were compared between the IH and home-call groups. To evaluate efficiency, emergency department LOS, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were compared. A separate subanalysis for the most severely injured patients (trauma alert red) was also performed. RESULTS: The home-call group (n = 4,804) was younger (p = 0.018) and had a higher Injury Severity Score (p = 0.003) than the IH group (n = 5259), but there was no difference in Trauma-Related Injury Severity Score (p = 0.205) between groups. In-house attending presence did not reduce mortality. Emergency department LOS, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were shorter during the IH period. Emergency department to operating room time was not different. There was no change in trauma alert red mortality with an attending present (20.7% vs 18.2%, p = 0.198). CONCLUSIONS: In-house attending presence does not improve trauma patient survival. For the most severely injured patients, attendings presence does not reduce mortality. In-house coverage can improve hospital efficiency by decreasing emergency department LOS, hospital LOS, and ICU LOS.