Screening and intervention for intimate partner violence at trauma centers and emergency departments: an evidence-based systematic review from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health issue with a substantial burden on society. Screening and intervention practices vary widely and there are no standard guidelines. Our objective was to review research on current practices for IPV prevention in emergency departments and trauma centers in the USA and provide evidenced-based recommendations. Methods: An evidence-based systematic review of the literature was conducted to address screening and intervention for IPV in adult trauma and emergency department patients. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology was used to determine the quality of evidence. Studies were included if they addressed our prespecified population, intervention, control, and outcomes questions. Case reports, editorials, and abstracts were excluded from review. Results: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. All seven were centered around screening for IPV; none addressed interventions when abuse was identified. Screening instruments varied across studies. Although it is unclear if one tool is more accurate than others, significantly more victims were identified when screening protocols were implemented compared with non-standardized approaches to identifying IPV victims. Conclusion: Overall, there were very limited data addressing the topic of IPV screening and intervention in emergency medical settings, and the quality of the evidence was low. With likely low risk and a significant potential benefit, we conditionally recommend implementation of a screening protocol to identify victims of IPV in adults treated in the emergency department and trauma centers. Although the purpose of screening would ultimately be to provide resources for victims, no studies that assessed distinct interventions met our inclusion criteria. Therefore, we cannot make specific recommendations related to IPV interventions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020219517.

Mesenteric Ischemia in Patients with Coronavirus 2019: A Scoping Review.

Background: Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) is a systemic disease associated with severe gastrointestinal complications including life-threatening mesenteric ischemia. We sought to review and summarize the currently available literature on the presentation, management, and outcomes of mesenteric ischemia in patients with COVID-19. Patients and Methods: The PubMed database was searched to identify studies published between January 2020 and January 2021 that reported one or more adult (≥18 years) patients with COVID-19 who developed mesenteric ischemia during hospitalization. The demographic characteristics, clinical and imaging findings, management, and outcomes of patients from each study were extracted and summarized. Results: A total of 35 articles reporting on 61 patients with COVID-19 with mesenteric ischemia met the eligibility and were included in our study. The mean age was 60 (±15.9) years, and 53% of patients were male. Imaging findings of these patients included mesenteric arterial or venous thromboembolism, followed by signs of mesenteric ischemia. Sixty-seven percent of patients were taken to the operating room for an exploratory laparotomy and bowel resection and 21% were managed conservatively. The terminal ileum was the most commonly involved area of necrosis (26%). The mortality rate of patients with COVID-19 with mesenteric ischemia was 33%, and the most common cause of death was multiorgan failure or refractory septic shock. Twenty-seven percent of patients managed operatively died during the post-operative period. Conclusions: Mesenteric ischemia in patients with COVID-19 is a devastating complication associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality. Further efforts should focus on developing strategies for early recognition and management.

Bowel Ischemia in COVID-19 Infection: One-Year Surgical Experience.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a deadly multisystemic disease, and bowel ischemia, the most consequential gastrointestinal manifestation, remains poorly described. Our goal is to describe our institution's surgical experience with management of bowel ischemia due to COVID-19 infection over a one-year period. METHODS: All patients admitted to our institution between March 2020 and March 2021 for treatment of COVID-19 infection and who underwent exploratory laparotomy with intra-operative confirmation of bowel ischemia were included. Data from the medical records were analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty patients were included. Eighty percent had a new or increasing vasopressor requirement, 70% had abdominal distension, and 50% had increased gastric residuals. Intra-operatively, ischemia affected the large bowel in 80% of cases, the small bowel in 60%, and both in 40%. Sixty five percent had an initial damage control laparotomy. Most of the resected bowel specimens had a characteristic appearance at the time of surgery, with a yellow discoloration, small areas of antimesenteric necrosis, and very sharp borders. Histologically, the bowel specimens frequently have fibrin thrombi in the small submucosal and mucosal blood vessels in areas of mucosal necrosis. Overall mortality in this cohort was 33%. Forty percent of patients had a thromboembolic complication overall with 88% of these developing a thromboembolic phenomenon despite being on prophylactic pre-operative anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: Bowel ischemia is a potentially lethal complication of COVID-19 infection with typical gross and histologic characteristics. Suspicious clinical features that should trigger surgical evaluation include a new or increasing vasopressor requirement, abdominal distension, and intolerance of gastric feeds.

Multisystem outcomes and predictors of mortality in critically ill patients with COVID-19: Demographics and disease acuity matter more than comorbidities or treatment modalities.

BACKGROUND: We sought to describe characteristics, multisystem outcomes, and predictors of mortality of the critically ill COVID-19 patients in the largest hospital in Massachusetts. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study. All patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with reverse-transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection between March 14, 2020, and April 28, 2020, were included; hospital and multisystem outcomes were evaluated. Data were collected from electronic records. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) was defined as PaO2/FiO2 ratio of ≤300 during admission and bilateral radiographic pulmonary opacities. Multivariable logistic regression analyses adjusting for available confounders were performed to identify predictors of mortality. RESULTS: A total of 235 patients were included. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 5 (3-8), and the median (IQR) PaO2/FiO2 was 208 (146-300) with 86.4% of patients meeting criteria for ARDS. The median (IQR) follow-up was 92 (86-99) days, and the median ICU length of stay was 16 (8-25) days; 62.1% of patients were proned, 49.8% required neuromuscular blockade, and 3.4% required extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The most common complications were shock (88.9%), acute kidney injury (AKI) (69.8%), secondary bacterial pneumonia (70.6%), and pressure ulcers (51.1%). As of July 8, 2020, 175 patients (74.5%) were discharged alive (61.7% to skilled nursing or rehabilitation facility), 58 (24.7%) died in the hospital, and only 2 patients were still hospitalized, but out of the ICU. Age (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.12), higher median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at ICU admission (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.06-1.43), elevated creatine kinase of ≥1,000 U/L at hospital admission (OR, 6.64; 95% CI, 1.51-29.17), and severe ARDS (OR, 5.24; 95% CI, 1.18-23.29) independently predicted hospital mortality.Comorbidities, steroids, and hydroxychloroquine treatment did not predict mortality. CONCLUSION: We present here the outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Age, acuity of disease, and severe ARDS predicted mortality rather than comorbidities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III.