Potential Immune Indicators for Predicting the Prognosis of COVID-19 and Trauma: Similarities and Disparities.

Although cellular and molecular mediators of the immune system have the potential to be prognostic indicators of disease outcomes, temporal interference between diseases might affect the immune mediators, and make them difficult to predict disease complications. Today one of the most important challenges is predicting the prognosis of COVID-19 in the context of other inflammatory diseases such as traumatic injuries. Many diseases with inflammatory properties are usually polyphasic and the kinetics of inflammatory mediators in various inflammatory diseases might be different. To find the most appropriate evaluation time of immune mediators to accurately predict COVID-19 prognosis in the trauma environment, researchers must investigate and compare cellular and molecular alterations based on their kinetics after the start of COVID-19 symptoms and traumatic injuries. The current review aimed to investigate the similarities and differences of common inflammatory mediators (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin, ferritin, and serum amyloid A), cytokine/chemokine levels (IFNs, IL-1, IL-6, TNF-α, IL-10, and IL-4), and immune cell subtypes (neutrophil, monocyte, Th1, Th2, Th17, Treg and CTL) based on the kinetics between patients with COVID-19 and trauma. The mediators may help us to accurately predict the severity of COVID-19 complications and follow up subsequent clinical interventions. These findings could potentially help in a better understanding of COVID-19 and trauma pathogenesis.

The use of ultrasound in establishing COVID-19 infection as part of a trauma evaluation.

PURPOSE: The use of lung ultrasound for diagnosis of COVID-19 has emerged during the pandemic as a beneficial diagnostic modality due to its rapid availability, bedside use, and lack of radiation. This study aimed to determine if routine ultrasound (US) imaging of the lungs of trauma patients with COVID-19 infections who undergo extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (EFAST) correlates with computed tomography (CT) imaging and X-ray findings, as previously reported in other populations. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational feasibility study performed at two level 1 trauma centers. US, CT, and X-ray imaging were retrospectively reviewed by a surgical trainee and a board-certified radiologist to determine any correlation of imaging findings in patients with active COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: There were 53 patients with lung US images from EFAST available for evaluation and COVID-19 testing. The overall COVID-19 positivity rate was 7.5%. COVID-19 infection was accurately identified by one patient on US by the trainee, but there was a 15.1% false-positive rate for infection based on the radiologist examination. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of the lung during EFAST cannot be used in the trauma setting to identify patients with active COVID-19 infection or to stratify patients as high or low risk of infection. This is likely due to differences in lung imaging technique and the presence of concomitant thoracic injury.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in special circumstances.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation prioritises treatment for cardiac arrests from a primary cardiac cause, which make up the majority of treated cardiac arrests. Early chest compressions and, when indicated, a defibrillation shock from a bystander give the best chance of survival with a good neurological status. Cardiac arrest can also be caused by special circumstances, such as asphyxia, trauma, pulmonary embolism, accidental hypothermia, anaphylaxis, or COVID-19, and during pregnancy or perioperatively. Cardiac arrests in these circumstances represent an increasing proportion of all treated cardiac arrests, often have a preventable cause, and require additional interventions to correct a reversible cause during resuscitation. The evidence for treating these conditions is mostly of low or very low certainty and further studies are needed. Irrespective of the cause, treatments for cardiac arrest are time sensitive and most effective when given early-every minute counts.

The impact of COVID-19 infection on outcomes after injury in a state trauma system.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic reshaped the health care system in 2020. COVID-19 infection has been associated with poor outcomes after orthopedic surgery and elective, general surgery, but the impact of COVID-19 on outcomes after trauma is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients admitted to Pennsylvania trauma centers from March 21 to July 31, 2020. The exposure of interest was COVID-19 (COV+) and the primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes were length of stay and complications. We compared demographic and injury characteristics between positive, negative, and not-tested patients. We used multivariable regression with coarsened exact matching to estimate the impact of COV+ on outcomes. RESULTS: Of 15,550 included patients, 8,170 (52.5%) were tested for COVID-19 and 219 (2.7%) were positive (COV+). Compared with COVID-19-negative (COV-) patients, COV+ patients were similar in terms of age and sex, but were less often white (53.5% vs. 74.7%, p < 0.0001), and more often uninsured (10.1 vs. 5.6%, p = 0.002). Injury severity was similar, but firearm injuries accounted for 11.9% of COV+ patients versus 5.1% of COV- patients (p < 0.001). Unadjusted mortality for COV+ was double that of COV- patients (9.1% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.0001) and length of stay was longer (median, 5 vs. 4 days; p < 0.001). Using coarsened exact matching, COV+ patients had an increased risk of death (odds ratio [OR], 6.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.29-15.99), any complication (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.08-3.16), and pulmonary complications (OR, 5.79; 95% CI, 2.02-16.54) compared with COV- patients. CONCLUSION: Patients with concomitant traumatic injury and COVID-19 infection have elevated risks of morbidity and mortality. Trauma centers must incorporate an understanding of these risks into patient and family counseling and resource allocation during this pandemic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Prognostic Study.

Usefulness of PCR Screening in the Initial Triage of Trauma Patients During COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals worldwide have postponed all nonessential surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, but non-COVID-19 patients are still in urgent need of care. Uncertainty about a patient's COVID-19 status risks infecting health care workers and non-COVID-19 inpatients. We evaluated the use of quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) screening for COVID-19 on admission for all patients with fractures. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients older than 18 years admitted with low-energy fractures who were tested by RT-qPCR for SARS-CoV-2 at any time during hospitalization. Two periods based on the applied testing protocol were defined. During the first period, patients were only tested because of epidemiological criteria or clinical suspicion based on fever, respiratory symptoms, or radiological findings. In the second period, all patients admitted for fracture treatment were screened by RT-qPCR. RESULTS: We identified 15 patients in the first period and 42 in the second. In total, 9 (15.8%) patients without clinical or radiological findings tested positive at any moment. Five (33.3%) patients tested positive postoperatively in the first period and 3 (7.1%) in the second period (P = 0.02). For clinically unsuspected patients, postoperative positive detection went from 3 of 15 (20%) during the first period to 2 of 42 (4.8%) in the second (P = 0.11). Clinical symptoms demonstrated high specificity (92.1%) but poor sensitivity (52.6%) for infection detection. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom-based screening for COVID-19 has shown to be specific but not sensitive. Negative clinical symptoms do not rule out infection. Protocols and separated areas are necessary to treat infected patients. RT-qPCR testing on admission helps minimize the risk of nosocomial and occupational infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

A Survey of Hospitalized Trauma Patients in Hemorrhage Control Education: Are Trauma Victims Willing to Stop the Bleed?

BACKGROUND: The Stop the Bleed (STB) campaign was developed in part to educate the lay public about hemorrhage control techniques aimed at reducing preventable trauma deaths. Studies have shown this training increases bystanders' confidence and willingness to provide aid. One high-risk group might be better solicited to take the course: individuals who have been a victim of previous trauma, as high rates of recidivism after trauma are well-established. Given this group's risk for recurrent injury, we evaluated their attitudes toward STB concepts. METHODS: We surveyed trauma patients admitted to 3 urban trauma centers in Baltimore from January 8, 2020 to March 14, 2020. The survey was terminated prematurely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Trauma patients hospitalized on any inpatient unit were invited to complete the survey via an electronic tablet. The survey asked about demographics, prior exposure to life-threatening hemorrhage and first aid training, and willingness to help a person with major bleeding. The Johns Hopkins IRB approved waiver of consent for this study. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients completed the survey. The majority of respondents had been hospitalized before (92.9%) and had witnessed severe bleeding (60.7%). The majority had never taken a first aid course (60.7%) nor heard of STB (83.9%). Most respondents would be willing to help someone with severe bleeding form a car crash (98.2%) or gunshot wound (94.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients admitted for trauma had not heard about Stop the Bleed, but stated willingness to respond to someone injured with major bleeding. Focusing STB education on individuals at high-risk for trauma recidivism may be particularly effective in spreading the message and skills of STB.

Current Controversies in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement: AJR Expert Panel Narrative Review.

Despite inferior vena cava (IVC) filter practice spanning over 50 years, interventionalists face many controversies in proper utilization and management. This article reviews recent literature and offers opinions on filter practices. IVC filtration is most likely to benefit patients at high risk of iatrogenic pulmonary embolus during endovenous intervention. Filters should be used selectively in patients with acute trauma or who are undergoing bariatric surgery. Retrieval should be attempted for perforating filter and fractured filter fragments when imaging suggests feasibility and favorable risk-to-benefit ratio. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be considered when removing filters with confirmed gastrointestinal penetration. Anticoagulation solely because of filter presence is not recommended except in patients with active malignancy. Anticoagulation while filters remain in place may decrease long-term filter complications in these patients. Patients with a filter and symptomatic IVC occlusion should be offered filter removal and IVC reconstruction. Physicians implanting filters may maximize retrieval by maintaining physician-patient relationships and scheduling follow-up at time of placement. Annual follow-up allows continued evaluation for removal or replacement as appropriate. Advanced retrieval techniques increase retrieval rates but require caution. Certain cases may require referral to experienced centers with additional retrieval resources. The views expressed should help guide clinical practice, future innovation, and research.

What's new in trauma 2020.

Throughout the past 2020, the pandemic COVID-19 has caused a big global shock, meanwhile it brought a great impact on the public health network. Trauma emergency system faced a giant challenge and how to manage trauma under the pandemic of COVID-19 was widely discussed. However, the trauma treatment of special population (geriatric patients and patients taking anticoagulant drugs) has received inadequate attention. Due to the high mortality following severe traumatic hemorrhage, hemostasis and trauma-induced coagulopathy are the important concerns in trauma treatment. Sepsis is another topic should not be ignored when we talking about trauma. COVID-19 itself is a special kind of sepsis, and it may even be called as serious systemic infection syndrome. Sepsis has been become a serious problem waiting to be solved urgently no matter in the fields of trauma, or in intensive care and infection, etc. This article reviewed the research progress in areas including trauma emergency care, trauma bleeding and coagulation, geriatric trauma and basic research of trauma within 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic, stress, and trauma in the disability community: A call to action.

PURPOSE: To inform the field of rehabilitation psychology about the impacts of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) on the disability community in the United States and the additional sources of stress and trauma disabled people face during these times. METHOD: A review of the literature on disability and COVID-19 is provided, with an emphasis on sources of trauma and stress that disproportionately impact the disability community and the ways in which disability intersects with other marginalized identities in the context of trauma and the pandemic. We also reflect on the potential impacts on the field of psychology and the ways in which psychologists, led by rehabilitation psychologists, can support disabled clients and the broader disability community at both the individual client and systemic levels. RESULTS: The COVID-19 pandemic introduces unique potential sources of trauma and stress within the disability community, including concerns about health care rationing and ableism in health care, isolation, and the deaths and illnesses of loved ones and community members. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Rehabilitation psychologists and other professionals should be aware of the potential for trauma and stress among disabled clients and work with them to mitigate its effects. Additionally, psychologists should also work with the disability community and disabled colleagues to address systemic and institutional ableism and its intersections with other forms of oppression. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

COVID-19: using chest CT of major trauma patients to monitor and evaluate the effect of lockdown and the importance of household size.

AIM: To use theory and practice to show how disease progression and regression can be described pre- and post-lockdown using an attack-sustain-decline-respite (ASDR) model and investigate how pre-lockdown disease prevalence and household size impacts on the effectiveness of lockdown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Computed tomography (CT) scans from major trauma patients (considered as a random population sample) from the radiology department of St George's University Hospitals NHS Trust, London, have been used to explore COVID-19 disease at the population level. RESULTS: At lockdown on 23 March 2020 in the catchment area of St George's University Hospitals NHS Trust, an earlier paper showed that there was a high prevalence of disease of >20%. With further follow-up and at the end of lockdown, it have been now estimated that around 57% of the population had been affected, which was similar to that predicted from a simple model based on average household size and prevalence at lockdown. With an average household size of around three persons, there was a 2-week sustain period and a 5-week decline period before the prevalence of the disease returned to background levels. CONCLUSIONS: The present results suggest that the effect of lockdown is dependent on the disease prevalence at the start of lockdown and the average household size. It may therefore be important to lockdown early in an area with a high average household size. This paper is the second in a series of papers to show how radiology measurements of major trauma patients can be used to help monitor the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Surviving traumatic cardiac arrest: Identification of factors associated with survival.

INTRODUCTION: The endpoint of resuscitative interventions after traumatic injury resulting in cardiopulmonary arrest varies across institutions and even among providers. The purpose of this study was to examine survival characteristics in patients suffering torso trauma with no recorded vital signs (VS) in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was analyzed from 2007 to 2015. Inclusion criteria were patients with blunt and penetrating torso trauma without VS in the ED. Patients with head injuries, transfers from other hospitals, or those with missing values were excluded. The characteristics of survivors were evaluated, and statistical analyses performed. RESULTS: A total of 24,191 torso trauma patients without VS were evaluated in the ED and 96.6% were declared dead upon arrival. There were 246 survivors (1%), and 73 (0.3%) were eventually discharged home. Of patients who responded to resuscitation (812), the survival rate was 30.3%. Injury severity score (ISS), penetrating mechanism (odds ratio [OR] 1.99), definitive chest (OR 1.59) and abdominal surgery (OR 1.49) were associated with improved survival. Discharge to home (or police custody) was associated with lower ISS (OR 0.975) and shorter ED time (OR 0.99). CONCLUSION: Over a recent nine-year period in the United States, nearly 25,000 trauma patients were treated at trauma centers despite lack of VS. Of these patients, only 73 were discharged home. A trauma center would have to attempt over one hundred resuscitations of traumatic arrests to save one patient, confirming previous reports that highlight a grave prognosis. This creates a dilemma in treatment for front line workers and physicians with resource utilization and consideration of safety of exposure, particularly in the face of COVID-19.

Outcomes of orthopaedic trauma patients undergoing surgery during the peak period of COVID-19 infection at a UK major trauma centre.

BACKGROUND: To review the clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing emergency orthopaedic trauma surgery at a UK major trauma centre during the first 6 weeks of the COVID-19 related lockdown. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent emergency orthopaedic trauma surgery at a single urban major trauma centre over the first six-week period of national lockdown. Demographics, co-morbidities, injuries, injury severity scores, surgery, COVID-19 status, complications and mortalities were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients were included for review who underwent multiple procedures. Significant co-morbidity was present in 72%. The overall COVID-19 infection rate of the study population at any time was 22%. Sub-group analysis indicated 13% had active COVID-19 at the time of surgery. Only 4% of patients developed COVID-19 post surgery with no mortalities in this sub-group. The overall mortality rate was 4%. The overall complication rate was 14%. However mortality and complications rates were higher if the patients had active COVID-19 at surgery, if they were over 70 years and had sustained life-threatening injuries. CONCLUSION: The overall survival rate for patients undergoing emergency orthopaedic trauma surgery during the COVID-19 peak was 96%. The rate of any complication was more significant in those presenting with active COVID-19 infections who had sustained potentially life threatening injuries and were over 70 years of age. Conversely those without active COVID-19 infection and who lacked significant co-morbidities experienced a lower complication and mortality rate.

Postoperative fever in the time of COVID-19.

Summary: Postoperative fever is common following orthopedic trauma surgery. As the prevalence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection increases in the community, migration into the acute care hospital setting intensifies, creating confusion when fever develops postoperatively. The transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 make it difficult to adequately gauge and pinpoint risk groups with questionnaires at the time of hospital admission. This is particularly problematic when asymptomatic or presymptomatic patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 require urgent surgery and cannot be screened effectively. One approach is to treat every patient as though they were SARS-CoV-2-positive in preparation for surgery, but doing so could exacerbate shortages of personal protective equipment and staffing limitations. Uncertainty regarding the etiology of postoperative fever could be significantly reduced by universal SARS-CoV-2 testing of all surgical patients at the time of hospital admission in addition to routine screening, but testing capacity and a rapid turnaround time would be required.