Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
World J Surg ; 48(2): 331-340, 2024 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38686782

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: We examined outcomes in Acute Mesenteric Ischemia (AMI) with the hypothesis that Open Abdomen (OA) is associated with decreased mortality. METHODS: We performed a cohort study reviewing NSQIP emergency laparotomy patients, 2016-2020, with a postoperative diagnosis of mesenteric ischemia. OA was defined using flags for patients without fascial closure. Logistic regression was used with outcomes of 30-day mortality and several secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Out of 5514 cases, 4624 (83.9%) underwent resection and 387 (7.0%) underwent revascularization. The OA rate was 32.6%. 10.8% of patients who were closed required reoperation. After adjustment for demographics, transfer status, comorbidities, preoperative variables including creatinine, white blood cell count, and anemia, as well as operative time, OA was associated with OR 1.58 for mortality (95% CI [1.38, 1.81], p < 0.001). Among revascularizations, there was no such association (p = 0.528). OA was associated with ventilator support >48 h (OR 4.04, 95% CI [3.55, 4.62], and p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: OA in AMI was associated with increased mortality and prolonged ventilation. This is not so in revascularization patients, and 1 in 10 patients who underwent primary closure required reoperation. OA should be considered in specific cases of AMI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort, Level III.


Assuntos
Isquemia Mesentérica , Técnicas de Abdome Aberto , Humanos , Isquemia Mesentérica/cirurgia , Isquemia Mesentérica/mortalidade , Isquemia Mesentérica/diagnóstico , Masculino , Feminino , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Técnicas de Abdome Aberto/métodos , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Vasculares/métodos , Reoperação/estatística & dados numéricos , Laparotomia/métodos , Estudos de Coortes , Complicações Pós-Operatórias/epidemiologia , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais
2.
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open ; 9(1): e001417, 2024.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39161373

RESUMO

Background: Although timely access to trauma center (TC) care for injured patients is essential, the proliferation of new TCs does not always improve outcomes. Hospitals may seek TC accreditation for financial reasons, rather than to address community or geographic need. Introducing new TCs risks degrading case and payer mix at established TCs. We hypothesized that newly accredited TCs would see a disproportionate share of commercially insured patients. Study design: We collected data from all accredited adult TCs in Pennsylvania using the state trauma registry from 1999 to 2018. As state policy regarding supplemental reimbursement for underinsured patients changed in 2004, we compared patient characteristics and payer mix between TCs established before and after 2004. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess the relationship between payer and presentation to a new versus established TC in recent years. Results: Over time, there was a 40% increase in the number of TCs from 23 to 38. Of 326 204 patients from 2010 to 2018, a total of 43 621 (13.4%) were treated at 15 new TCs. New TCs treated more blunt trauma and less severely injured patients (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, patients presenting to new TCs were more likely to have Medicare (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.9 to 2.1) and commercial insurance (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.5 to 1.6) compared with Medicaid. Over time, fewer patients at established TCs and more patients at new TCs had private insurance. Conclusions: With the opening of new centers, payer mix changed unfavorably at established TCs. Trauma system development should consider community and regional needs, as well as impact on existing centers to ensure financial sustainability of TCs caring for vulnerable patients. Level of evidence: Level III, prognostic/epidemiological.

3.
Trauma Surg Acute Care Open ; 9(1): e001228, 2024.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38410755

RESUMO

Objective: This study investigates the challenge posed by state borders by identifying the population, injury, and geographic scope of areas of the country where the closest trauma center is out-of-state, and by collating state emergency medical services (EMS) policies relevant to cross-border trauma transport. Methods: We identified designated levels I, II, and III trauma centers using data from American Trauma Society. ArcGIS was used to map the distance between US census block groups and trauma centers to identify the geographic areas for which cross-border transport may be most expedient. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data were queried to quantify the proportion of fatal crashes occurring in the areas of interest. State EMS protocols were categorized by stance on cross-border transport. Results: Of 237 596 included US census block groups, 18 499 (7.8%) were closest to an out-of-state designated level I or II trauma center. These census block groups accounted for 6.9% of the US population and 9.5% of all motor vehicle fatalities. With the inclusion of level III trauma centers, the number of US census block groups closest to an out-of-state designated level I, II, or III trauma center decreased to 13 690 (5.8%). These census block groups accounted for 5.1% of the US population and 7.1% of all motor vehicle fatalities. Of the 48 contiguous states, 30 encourage cross-border transport, 2 discourage it, 12 are neutral, and 4 leave it to local discretion. Conclusion: Cross-border transport can expedite access to care in at least 5% of US census block groups. While few states discourage this practice, more robust policy guidance could reduce delays and enhance care. Level of Evidence: III, Epidemiological.

4.
Crit Care Explor ; 5(11): e0992, 2023 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38304707

RESUMO

Humanitarian crises create opportunities for both in-person and remote aid. Durable, complex, and team-based care may leverage a telemedicine approach for comprehensive support within a conflict zone. Barriers and enablers are detailed, as is the need for mission expansion due to initial program success. Adapting a telemedicine program initially designed for critical care during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic offers a solution to data transfer and data analysis issues. Staffing efforts and grouped elements of patient care detail the kinds of remote aid that are achievable. A multiprofessional team-based approach (clinical, administrative, nongovernmental organization, government) can provide comprehensive consultation addressing surgical planning, critical care management, infection and infection control management, and patient transfer for complex care. Operational and network security create parallel concerns relevant to avoid geolocation and network intrusion during consultation. Deliberate approaches to address cultural differences that influence relational dynamics are also essential for mission success.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA