Correlation between intracranial pressure monitoring for severe traumatic brain injury with hospital length of stay and discharge disposition: a retrospective observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is recommended for severe traumatic brain injuries (TBI) but some data suggests it may not improve outcomes. The objective was to investigate the effect of ICP monitoring among TBI. METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study (1/1/2015-6/1/2020) included severe TBI patients. Outcomes [discharge destination, length of stay (LOS)] were compared by ICP monitoring and were stratified by GCS (3 vs. 4-8), α < 0.05. RESULTS: Of the123 patients who met inclusion criteria, 47% received ICP monitoring. There were baseline differences in the two groups characteristics, ICP monitored patients were younger (p = 0.02), had a subarachnoid hemorrhage less often (p = 0.04), and a subdural hematoma more often (p = 0.04) than those without ICP monitors. ICP monitored patients had a significantly longer median LOS (12 vs. 3, p < 0.01) than patients without monitoring. There was a trend towards more ICP monitored patients discharged home (40% vs. 23%, p = 0.06). Among patients with GCS = 3, ICP monitored patients had a longer LOS (p < 0.01) with no significant differences in discharge destinations. For those with a GCS of 4-8, ICP monitoring was associated with a longer LOS (p = 0.01), but fewer were discharged to a skilled nursing facility or long-term care (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: For TBI patients, ICP monitoring was associated with an increased LOS, with no significant differences in discharge destinations when compared to those without ICP monitoring. However, among only those with a GCS of 4-8, ICP monitoring was associated with a decreased proportion of patients discharged to a skilled nursing facility or long-term acute care .

Analysis of Limb Outcomes by Management of Concomitant Vein Injury in Military Popliteal Artery Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Despite aggressive limb salvage attempts, military popliteal artery injuries are associated with high amputation rates. Combined arterial and venous injuries present a management dilemma for military surgeons in austere settings, and the impact of vein injury management strategy on limb outcomes is not clear. METHODS: Military casualties sustaining combined ipsilateral popliteal artery and vein injuries from 2003 to 2016 were identified from a military vascular injury database. Limbs were grouped based on whether venous ligation or repair was initially performed. The primary outcome was secondary amputation; the secondary outcomes included limb and vascular/graft complications. RESULTS: Fifty-six limbs were included; of which, 27 (48%) were managed with vein ligation and 29 (52%) with repair. Veins were repaired primarily in 13 (45%) cases with the remainder being treated with interposition grafts. Median injury severity score was higher in the ligation group (19 vs 15, P = 0.09), but vascular and concomitant limb injury characteristics were similar. Amputation rates did not differ by vein treatment (45% repair vs. 41% ligation, P = 0.76), and this held with injuries above and below the knee considered independently. Most (71%) amputations were performed <30 days from injury. Amputation was indicated more frequently for vascular repair failure in the ligated group (55% vs 15%, P = 0.04). Four graft infections were all in the repair group (P = 0.07 vs ligation). Arterial graft complications were more frequent with vein repair (45%) than ligation (30%), but this did not reach significance (P = 0.24). Only one deep vein thrombosis was diagnosed in each group (P = 0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Type of management of concomitant popliteal vein injury was not associated with early or late amputation in this series of military popliteal artery injuries. Vein injury management may have had implications for the development of arterial graft and limb complications, however. Surgical decision-making regarding popliteal vein treatment should balance short-term contingencies with long-term limb salvage issues.

Clinical and laboratory predictors of blood loss in young swine: a model for pediatric hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: The pediatric patient's response to hemorrhage as a function of young age is not well understood. As a result, there is no consensus on optimal resuscitation strategies for hemorrhagic shock in pediatric patients, or on the identification of clinical triggers to prompt implementation. The study objective was to develop a model of pediatric hemorrhage using young pigs to simulate school-aged children, and determine clinical and laboratory indicators for significant hemorrhage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 29 non-splenectomized female pigs, aged 3 months, weighing 30-40 kg, were randomized into groups with varying degrees of hemorrhage. Bleeding occurred intermittently over 5 h while the animals were anesthetized but spontaneously breathing. Various physiologic and biochemical markers were used to monitor the piglets during hemorrhage. RESULTS: Swine experiencing up to 50% hemorrhage survived without exception throughout the course of hemorrhage. 80% (4/5) of the animals in the 60% hemorrhage group survived. Need for respiratory support was universal when blood loss reached 50% of estimated blood volume. Blood pressure was not useful in classifying the degree of shock. Heart rate was helpful in differentiating between the extremes of blood loss examined. Arterial pCO2, pH, lactate, HCO3 and creatinine levels, as well as urine output, changed significantly with increasing blood loss. CONCLUSIONS: Young swine are resilient against hemorrhage, although hemorrhage of 50% or greater universally require respiratory support. In this animal model, with the exception of heart rate, vital signs were minimally helpful in identification of shock. However, change in select laboratory values from baseline was significant with increasing blood loss. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: This was a level II prospective comparative study.

Restrictive fluid resuscitation in combination with damage control resuscitation: time for adaptation.

BACKGROUND: Damage control resuscitation (DCR) conveys a survival advantage in patients with severe hemorrhage. The role of restrictive fluid resuscitation (RFR) when used in combination with DCR has not been elucidated. We hypothesize that RFR, when used with DCR, conveys an overall survival benefit for patients with severe hemorrhage. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis from January 2007 to May 2011 at a Level I trauma center. Inclusion criteria included penetrating torso injuries, systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, and managed with DCR and damage control surgery (DCS). There were two groups according to the quantity of fluid before DCS: (1) standard fluid resuscitation (SFR) greater than or equal to 150 mL of crystalloid; (2) RFR less than 150 mL of crystalloid. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Three hundred seven patients were included. Before DCS, 132 (43%) received less than 150 mL of crystalloids, grouped under RFR; and 175 (57%) received greater than or equal to 150 mL of crystalloids, grouped under SFR. Demographics and initial clinical characteristics were similar between the study groups. Compared with the SFR group, RFR patients received less fluid preoperatively (129 mL vs. 2,757 mL; p < 0.001), exhibited a lower intraoperative mortality (9% vs. 32%; p < 0.001), and had a shorter hospital length of stay (13 vs. 18 days; p = 0.02). Patients in the SFR group had a lower trauma intensive care unit mortality (5 vs. 12%; p = 0.03) but exhibited a higher overall mortality. Patients receiving RFR demonstrated a survival benefit, with an odds ratio for mortality of 0.69 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.91). CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first civilian study that analyzes the impact of RFR in patients managed with DCR. Its use in conjunction with DCR for hypotensive trauma patients with penetrating injuries to the torso conveys an overall and early intraoperative survival benefit. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.