Developing a national trauma research action plan: Results from the Burn Research Gap Delphi Survey.

BACKGROUND: The 2016 National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine call for a national integrated, military-civilian trauma action plan to achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury included a proposal to establish a National Trauma Research Action Plan to "strengthen trauma research and ensure that the resources available for this research are commensurate with the importance of injury and the potential for improvement in patient outcomes." The Department of Defense funded the Coalition for National Trauma Research to generate a comprehensive research agenda spanning the continuum of trauma/burn care from prehospital to rehabilitation. The Burn/Reconstructive Surgery group represents one focus area for this research agenda development. METHODS: Experts in burn and reconstructive surgery research identified gaps in knowledge, generated research questions and prioritized questions using a consensus driven Delphi survey approach. Participants were identified using established Delphi recruitment guidelines to ensure heterogeneity and generalizability with military and civilian representatives. Literature reviews informed the panel. Panelists were encouraged to use a PICO format to generate research questions: Patient/Population; Intervention; Compare/Control; Outcome. Participants ranked the priority of each question on a nine-point Likert scale, which was categorized to represent low, medium, and high priority items. Consensus was defined based on ≥60% panelist agreement. RESULTS: Subject matter experts generated 949 research questions in 29 Burn & 26 Reconstruction topics. Five hundred ninety-seven questions reached consensus. Of these, 338 (57%) were high-priority, 180 (30%), medium-priority, and 78 (13%) low-priority questions. CONCLUSION: Many high-priority questions translate to complex wound management and outcomes. Panel recognition that significant gaps in knowledge exist in understanding functional outcomes after injury underscores the importance of long-term recovery metrics even when studying acute injury or interventions such as resuscitation or inhalation injury. Funding agencies and burn/reconstructive surgery researchers should consider these gaps when they prioritize future research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Expert consensus, Level IV.

Timing of repair of blunt thoracic aortic injuries in the thoracic endovascular aortic repair era.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the preferred operative treatment of blunt thoracic aortic injuries (BTAIs). Its use is associated with improved outcomes compared with open surgical repair and nonoperative management. However, the optimal time from injury to repair is unknown and remains a subject of debate across different societal practice guidelines. The purpose of this study was to evaluate national trends in the management of BTAI, with a specific focus on the impact of timing of repair on outcomes. METHODS: Using the National Trauma Data Bank, we identified adult patients with BTAI between 2012 and 2017. Patients with prehospital or emergency department cardiac arrest or incomplete data sets were excluded from analysis. Patients were classified according to timing of repair: group 1, <24 hours; and group 2, ≥24 hours. The primary outcome evaluated was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included overall hospital and intensive care unit length of stay. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify independent predictors of mortality. RESULTS: The analysis was completed for 2821 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI with known operative times. The overall mortality in the patient cohort was 8.4% (238/2821); 75% of patients undergoing TEVAR were repaired within 24 hours. Mortality was more than twofold greater in group 1 compared with group 2 (9.8% [207/2118] vs 4.4% [31/703]; P = .001). This mortality benefit persisted across injury severity groups and was independent of the presence of serious extrathoracic injuries. Logistic regression analysis, adjusting for age ≥65 years, Glasgow Coma Scale score ≤8, systolic blood pressure ≤90 mm Hg at admission, and serious extrathoracic injuries, showed a higher adjusted mortality in group 1 (odds ratio, 2.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.66-3.91; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients with BTAI undergo endovascular repair within 24 hours of injury. Patients undergoing delayed repair have improved survival compared with those repaired within the first 24 hours of injury in spite of similar injury patterns and severity. In patients with BTAIs without signs of imminent rupture, delaying endovascular repair beyond 24 hours after injury should be considered.