Thromboelastography Parameters do not Discriminate for Thrombotic Events in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a prothrombotic state; leading to multiple sequelae. We sought to detect whether thromboelastography (TEG) parameters would be able to detect thromboembolic events in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter case-control study of the Collaborative Research to Understand the Sequelae of Harm in COVID (CRUSH COVID) registry of 8 tertiary care level hospitals in the United States (US). This registry contains adult patients with COVID-19 hospitalized between March 2020 and September 2020. RESULTS: A total of 277 hospitalized COVID-19 patients were analyzed to determine whether conventional coagulation TEG parameters were associated with venous thromboembolic (VTE) and thrombotic events during hospitalization. A clotting index (CI) >3 was present in 45.8% of the population, consistent with a hypercoagulable state. Eighty-three percent of the patients had clot lysis at 30 min (LY30) = 0, consistent with fibrinolysis shutdown, with a median of 0.1%. We did not find TEG parameters (LY30 area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve [AUC] = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.44-0.65, P value = .32; alpha angle [α] AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.47-0.69, P value = .17; K time AUC = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.46-0.69, P value = .67; maximum amplitude (MA) AUC = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44-0.64, P value = .47; reaction time [R time] AUC = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.42-0.65, P value = .70) to be a good discriminator for VTE. We also did not find TEG parameters (LY30 AUC = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.42-0.60, P value = .84; R time AUC = 0.57, 95%CI: 0.48-0.67, P value .07; α AUC = 0.59, 95%CI: 0.51-0.68, P value = .02; K time AUC = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.53-0.70, P value = .07; MA AUC = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.57-0.74, P value < .01) to be a good discriminator for thrombotic events. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective multicenter cohort study, TEG in COVID-19 hospitalized patients may indicate a hypercoagulable state, however, its use in detecting VTE or thrombotic events is limited in this population.

A Comparative Survey Study of In-Person Versus Virtual Trauma Peer Review Meetings.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma mandates regular peer review meetings for verified trauma centers. The COVID-19 pandemic forced in-person meetings to transition to an online platform. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the opinions of participants regarding the benefits and negative aspects of the virtual peer review process. We hypothesize that physicians and nurses would prefer a virtual meeting format. METHODS: An anonymous online survey of members of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma and the Society of Trauma Nurses was distributed in May and June of 2021. Demographic data and Likert scale-based responses were collected using the Research Electronic Data Capture platform. RESULTS: Invitations were sent to 1,726 physicians and 2,912 nurses. In total, 137 (8%) physicians and 141 (5%) nurses completed the survey. Both groups felt that either platform was effective in addressing opportunities for improvement in care. Physicians disagreed with the statement that anonymous online voting improved their ability to more accurately address opportunities for improvement. In total, 108 (79%) physicians and 100 (71%) nurses preferred a hybrid meeting. Only 18 (13%) physicians and 23 (16%) nurses wanted virtual meetings, whereas only 29 (21%) physicians and 36 (26%) nurses wanted in-person meetings going forward. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual and in-person trauma peer review meetings are equally effective in terms of case discussion and identifying opportunities for improvement in care. Given that most people preferred a hybrid meeting, future studies evaluating how best to incorporate and implement this format are needed.

Survey of surgical critical care applicant and program director views on virtual interviews for fellowship training: a Surgical Critical Care Program Directors Society sponsored study.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced postgraduate interview processes to move to a virtual platform. There are no studies on the opinions of faculty and applicants regarding this format. The aim of this study was to assess the opinions of surgical critical care (SCC) applicants and program directors regarding the virtual versus in-person interview process. Methods: An anonymous survey of the SCC Program Director's Society members and applicants to the 2019 (in-person) and 2020 (virtual) interview cycles was done. Demographic data and Likert scale based responses were collected using Research Electronic Data Capture. Results: Fellowship and program director responses rates were 25% (137/550) and 58% (83/143), respectively. Applicants in the 2020 application cycle attended more interviews. The majority of applicants (57%) and program faculty (67%) strongly liked/liked the virtual interview format but felt an in-person format allows better assessment of the curriculum and culture of the program. Both groups felt that an in-person format allows applicants and faculty to establish rapport better. Only 9% and 16% of SCC program directors wanted a purely virtual or purely in-person interview process, respectively. Applicants were nearly evenly split between preferring a purely in-person versus virtual interviews in the future. Discussion: The virtual interview format allows applicants and program directors to screen a larger number of programs and applications. However, the virtual format is less useful than an in-person interview format for describing unique aspects of a training program and for allowing faculty and applicants to establish rapport. Future strategies using both formats may be optimal, but such an approach requires further study. Level of evidence: Epidemiologic level IV.

Disasters on campus: A cross-sectional survey of college EMS systems' preparedness to respond to mass casualty incidents.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the training and readiness levels of Collegiate Emergency Medical Service (EMS) providers to respond to mass casualty incidents (MCIs). METHODS: An anonymous cross-sectional survey of Collegiate EMS providers was performed. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were US-based EMS providers affiliated with the National Collegiate Emergency Medical Services Foundation. OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome measures were levels of EMS experience and MCI training, subjective readiness levels for responding to various MCI scenarios, and analyzing the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on MCI response capabilities. RESULTS: Respondents had a median age of 21 years (interquartile range IQR 20, 22), with 86 percent (n = 96/112) being trained to the Emergency Medical Technician-Basic level. Providers reported participating in an average of 1.6 MCI trainings over the last four years (IQR, 1.0, 2.2). Subjective MCI response readiness levels were highest with active assailant attacks followed by large event evacuations, natural disasters, hazardous material (HAZMAT) incidents, targeted automobile ramming attacks, explosions, and finally bioweapons release. Disparate to this, only 18 percent of participants reported training in the fundamentals of tactical and disaster medicine. With respect to the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on MCI readiness, 27 percent of respondents reported being less prepared, and there was a statistically significant decrease in subjective readiness to respond to HAZMAT incidents. CONCLUSION: Given low rates of MCI training but high rates of self-assessed MCI preparedness, respondents may overestimate their readiness to adequately respond to the complexity of a real-world MCI. More objective assessment measures are needed to evaluate provider preparedness.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on injury prevalence and pattern in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Region: a multicenter study by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, Washington, DC.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had far-reaching effects on healthcare systems and society with resultant impact on trauma systems worldwide. This study evaluates the impact the pandemic has had in the Washington, DC Metropolitan Region as compared with similar months in 2019. DESIGN: A retrospective multicenter study of all adult trauma centers in the Washington, DC region was conducted using trauma registry data between January 1, 2019 and May 31, 2020. March 1, 2020 through May 31, 2020 was defined as COVID-19, and January 1, 2019 through February 28, 2020 was defined as pre-COVID-19. Variables examined include number of trauma contacts, trauma admissions, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, trauma center location (urban vs. suburban), and patient demographics. RESULTS: There was a 22.4% decrease in the overall incidence of trauma during COVID-19 compared with a 3.4% increase in trauma during pre-COVID-19. Blunt mechanism of injury decreased significantly during COVID-19 (77.4% vs. 84.9%, p<0.001). There was no change in the specific mechanisms of fall from standing, blunt assault, and motor vehicle crash. The proportion of trauma evaluations for penetrating trauma increased significantly during COVID-19 (22.6% vs. 15.1%, p<0.001). Firearm-related and stabbing injury mechanisms both increased significantly during COVID-19 (11.8% vs. 6.8%, p<0.001; 9.2%, 6.9%, p=0.002, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The overall incidence of trauma has decreased since the arrival of COVID-19. However, there has been a significant rise in penetrating trauma. Preparation for future pandemic response should include planning for an increase in trauma center resource utilization from penetrating trauma. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological, level III.

Interhospital Transfer of Critically Ill Patients Because of Coronavirus Disease 19-Related Respiratory Failure.

OBJECTIVE: Interfacility transfer of patients with coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory failure is high risk because of the severity of respiratory failure and potential for crew exposure. This article describes a hospital-based transport team's experience with interfacility transport of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive patients. METHODS: A retrospective study of transports for respiratory failure caused by SARS-CoV-2 was performed. All transports were performed by a single critical care transport team. The team was already trained in advanced mechanical ventilation, blood gas interpretation, and management of shock. Guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was followed regarding the use of personal protective equipment. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled. The average patient age was 47 years (standard deviation [SD] = 12 years). The average Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 10 (SD = 4) and 24 (SD = 7), respectively. The average transport distance and time were 18 miles (SD = 9 miles) and 25 minutes (SD = 11 minutes), respectively. Nineteen patients were intubated, 9 of whom required advanced ventilation. Two patients were transported prone. One patient experienced unintentional extubation upon transfer from the stretcher to the destination facility bed. The patient was reintubated without event. No crewmembers contracted SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSION: Interfacility transfer of severely ill SARS-CoV-2-positive patients is safe and feasible.