ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The management of blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVIs) remains an important topic within trauma and neurosurgery today. There remains a lack of consensus within the literature and significant variation across institutions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate management of BCVI at a large, tertiary referral trauma center. METHODS: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained to conduct a retrospective review of patients with BCVI at our Level 1 Trauma Center. Computed tomography angiography was used to identify BCVI for each patient. Patient information was collected, and statistical analysis was performed. With the included risk factors for ischemic complications, a novel scoring system based on ischemic risk, the "Memphis Score," was developed and evaluated to grade BCVI. RESULTS: Two hundred seventeen patients with BCVI from July 2020 to August 2022 were identified. The most common mechanism of injury was motor vehicle collision (141, 65.0%). Vertebral arteries were the most common vessel injured (136, 51.1%) with most injuries occurring at a high cervical location (101, 38.0%). Denver Grade 1 injuries (89, 33.5%) and a Memphis Score of 1 were most frequent (172, 64.6%), and initial anticoagulation with heparin drip was initiated 56.7% of the time (123). Endovascular treatment was required in 24 patients (11.1%) and was usually performed in the first 48 hours (15, 62.5%). While Denver Grade (P = .019) and Memphis Score (P < .00001) were significantly higher in those patients undergoing endovascular treatment, only the Memphis Score demonstrated a significant difference between those patients who had stroke or worsening on follow-up imaging and those who did not (P = .0009). CONCLUSION: Although BCVI management has improved since early investigative efforts, institutions must evaluate and share their data to help clarify outcomes. The novel "Memphis Score" presents a standardized framework to communicate ischemic risk and guide management of BCVI.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The relationship between outcomes, patient safety indicators and volume has been well established in patient's undergoing craniotomy for brain tumor. However, the determination of "high" and "low" volume centers have been subjectively derived. We present a paper with a novel method of objectively determining "high" volume centers for craniotomy for brain tumor. METHODS: Patients from 2002 to 2011 were identified in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database using ICD-9 codes related to craniotomy for brain tumor. Primary endpoints of interest were hospital PSI event rate, in-hospital mortality rate, observed-to-expected PSI event ratio, and O/E in-hospital mortality ratio. Using a zero-inflated gamma model analysis and a cutpoint analysis we determined the volume threshold between and "high" and "low" volume hospitals. We then completed an analysis using this determined threshold to look at PSI events and mortality as they relate to "high" volume and "low" volume hospitals. RESULTS: 12.4 % of hospitals were categorized as good performers using O/E ratios. Regarding in-hospital mortality, 16.8 % were good performers. Using the above statistical analysis the threshold to define high vs. low volume centers was determined to be 27 craniotomies. High volume centers had significantly lower O/E ratios for both PSI and mortality events. The PSI O/E ratio was reduced 55 % and mortality O/E ratio reduced 73 % at high volume centers as defined by our analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated at institutions performing >27 craniotomies per year for brain tumors have a lower likelihood of PSI events and decreased in-hospital morbidity and mortality.
