ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To evaluate massive transfusion protocol practices by trauma type at a level I trauma center. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on a sample of 76 trauma patients with MTP activation between March 2010 and January 2015 at a regional trauma center. Patient demographics, transfusion practices, and clinical outcomes were compared by type of trauma sustained. RESULTS: Penetrating trauma patients who required MTP activation were significantly younger, had lower injury severity score (ISS), higher probability of survival (POS), decreased mortality, and higher Glasgow Coma scale (GCS) compared to blunt trauma patients. Overall, the mortality rate was 38.16%. The most common injury sustained among blunt trauma patients was head injury (36.21%), whereas the majority of the penetrating trauma patients sustained abdominal injuries (55.56%). Although the admission coagulation parameters and timing of coagulopathy were not significantly different between the two groups of patients, a significantly higher proportion of penetrating trauma patients received high plasma content therapy relative to blunt trauma patients (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite the use of the same MTP for all injured patients requiring massive transfusion, significant differences existed between blunt trauma patients and penetrating trauma patients. These differences in transfusion characteristics and outcomes following MTP activation underscore the complexity of implementing MTPs and warrant vigilant transfusion practices to improve outcomes in trauma patients.
Subject(s)
Blood Transfusion/methods , Hemorrhage/diagnosis , Hemorrhage/therapy , Hospital Mortality/trends , Trauma Centers/organization & administration , Wounds and Injuries/therapy , Academic Medical Centers , Adult , Cohort Studies , Female , Glasgow Coma Scale , Hemorrhage/mortality , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , New York , Prognosis , Retrospective Studies , Risk Assessment , Severity of Illness Index , Survival Analysis , Wounds and Injuries/diagnosis , Wounds and Injuries/mortality , Wounds, Nonpenetrating/diagnosis , Wounds, Nonpenetrating/mortality , Wounds, Nonpenetrating/therapy , Wounds, Penetrating/diagnosis , Wounds, Penetrating/mortality , Wounds, Penetrating/therapy , Young AdultABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the analgesic efficacy of bromfenac sodium ophthalmic solution 0.09% compared with ketorolac tromethamine ophthalmic solution 0.5% in laser epithelial keratomileusis (LASEK) or epithelial keratomileusis (epi-LASEK), sometimes referred to as epi-LASIK. METHODS: Eighty eyes (from 40 patients, 18 men and 22 women) undergoing bilateral simultaneous LASEK or epi-LASEK were randomized to receive ketorolac in one eye and bromfenac in the other. Mean age was 33.13 ± 9.34 years. One drop of bromfenac or ketorolac was instilled in each eye 15 minutes and one minute prior to surgery, and two and four hours following surgery. Patients were instructed to instill the medications on-label each day through postoperative day 4. The subjects completed pain and visual blurriness assessments from day of surgery to postoperative day 4. Uncorrected visual acuity was tested on postoperative days 1 and 6. RESULTS: For each of the five days, pain scores for bromfenac-treated eyes were significantly less than that for ketorolac-treated eyes (P < 0.01). Of the 40 patients, 32 (80%) said bromfenac provided better postoperative analgesia than ketorolac. There was no statistically significant difference in visual blurriness scores between the two groups (P > 0.1). Uncorrected visual acuity did not vary significantly between the treatment groups (P > 0.1). No serious adverse events were noted. CONCLUSION: Bromfenac is subjectively superior to ketorolac in reducing postoperative pain following LASEK or epi-LASEK. The subjects tolerated the drugs well with no serious adverse outcomes and no difference in uncorrected visual acuity.
