Approaches for optimizing venous thromboembolism prevention in injured patients: Findings from the consensus conference to implement optimal venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in trauma.

ABSTRACT: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major issue in trauma patients. Without prophylaxis, the rate of deep venous thrombosis approaches 60% and even with chemoprophylaxis may be nearly 30%. Advances in VTE reduction are imperative to reduce the burden of this issue in the trauma population. Novel approaches in VTE prevention may include new medications, dosing regimens, and extending prophylaxis to the postdischarge phase of care. Standard dosing regimens of low-molecular-weight heparin are insufficient in trauma, shifting our focus toward alternative dosing strategies to improve prophylaxis. Mixed data suggest that anti-Xa-guided dosage, weight-based dosing, and thromboelastography are among these potential strategies. The concern for VTE in trauma does not end upon discharge, however. The risk for VTE in this population extends well beyond hospitalization. Variable extended thromboprophylaxis regimens using aspirin, low-molecular-weight heparin, and direct oral anticoagulants have been suggested to mitigate this prolonged VTE risk, but the ideal approach for outpatient VTE prevention is still unclear. As part of the 2022 Consensus Conference to Implement Optimal Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Trauma, a multidisciplinary array of participants, including physicians from multiple specialties, pharmacists, nurses, advanced practice providers, and patients met to attack these issues. This paper aims to review the current literature on novel approaches for optimizing VTE prevention in injured patients and identify research gaps that should be investigated to improve VTE rates in trauma.

Prospective randomized trial of metal versus resorbable plates in surgical stabilization of rib fractures.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures has gained popularity as both metal and resorbable plates have been approved for fracture repair. Is there a difference between metal and resorbable plate rib fixation regarding rib fracture alignment, control of pain, and quality-of-life (QOL) scores (Rand SF-36 survey)? METHODS: Eligible patients (pts) included 18 years or older with one or more of the following: flail chest, one or more bicortical displaced fractures (3-10), nondisplaced fractures with failure of medical management. Patients were randomized to either metal or resorbable plate fixation. Primary outcome was fracture alignment. Secondary outcomes were pain scores, opioid use, and QOL scores. RESULTS: Thirty pts were randomized (15 metal/15 resorbable). Total ribs plated 167 (88 metal/79 resorbable). Patients with rib displacement at day of discharge (DOD) metal 0/14 (one pt died, not from plating) versus resorbable 9/15 or 60% ( p = 0.001). Ribs displaced at DOD metal 0/88 versus resorbable 22/79 or 28% ( p < 0.001), 48% in posterior location. Patients with increased rib displacement 3 months to 6 months: metal, 0/11 versus resorbable, 3/9 or 33% ( p = 0.043). Ribs with increased displacement 3 months to 6 months metal 0 of 67 versus resorbable 6 of 49 or 12.2% ( p < 0.004). Pain scores and narcotic use at postoperative Days 1, 2, 3, DOD, 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months showed no statistically significant difference between groups. QOL scores were also similar at 3 months and 6 months. Trauma recidivism in outpatient period resulted in fracture of resorbable plates in two pts requiring a second surgery. CONCLUSION: Metal plates provided better initial alignment with no displacement over time. Clinical outcomes were similar regarding pain, narcotic use, and QOL scores. Routine use of resorbable plates for posterior rib fractures is not warranted. Lateral repairs were technically most feasible for using resorbable plates but still resulted in significant displacement. Resorbable plates may not maintain rib alignment when exposed to subsequent injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

Comprehensive Initiative to Decrease Trauma Venous Thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Our trauma center was a high outlier for pulmonary embolism on a 2017 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) report. The odds ratio for developing a pulmonary embolus was 1.76 and was in the 10th decile (worst results). Of the patients who received chemoprophylaxis, only 69% of patients received the "gold standard" low-molecular-weight heparin. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe and evaluate a multicomponent performance improvement project to prevent pulmonary embolus incidence. METHODS: This descriptive study was a before-and-after time-series analysis of adult trauma patients. Ongoing data validation, concurrent monitoring, and analysis on incidence of venous thrombolytic events identified barriers to evidence-based chemoprophylaxis administration. RESULTS: There were a total of 4,711 trauma patients in the analysis. Compared with preintervention (fall 2017), the fall 2019 TQIP report indicated the pulmonary embolus odds ratio dropped to 0.56, lowering the benchmark decile from 10 (worst) to 1 (best). The proportion of patients receiving no chemoprophylaxis decreased to 23% and was lower than all hospitals (32%). The rate of low-molecular-weight heparin use increased to 80% for patients receiving chemoprophylaxis, and unfractionated heparin use plummeted to 14%. The proportion of patients with no chemoprophylaxis in the severe traumatic brain injury cohort fell to 21%. CONCLUSIONS: The high pulmonary embolus rate was driven by inaccurate data, infrequent monitoring, suboptimal ordering, and administration of chemoprophylaxis. A sustained decrease in the pulmonary embolus incidence was achieved through collaboration, updated guidelines, expanded education, concurrent validation, monitoring, and frequent reporting.

Multimodal Analgesia and Decreased Opioid Use in Adult Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: There is an opioid epidemic in the United States. With the increased concern of over-prescribing opioids, physicians are seeking alternative pain management strategies. The purpose of this study is to review the impact of instituting a multimodal analgesia (MMA) guideline on decreasing opioid use in trauma patients at a Level 1 trauma center. METHODS: In 2017, an MMA guideline was developed and included anti-inflammatories, muscle relaxants, neuropathic agents, and local analgesics in addition to opioids. Staff were educated and the guideline was implemented. A retrospective review of medications prescribed to patients admitted from 2016 through 2018 was performed. Patients admitted in 2016 served as the control group (before MMA). In 2018, all patients received multimodal pain therapy as standard practice, and served as the comparison group. RESULTS: A total of 10 340 patients were admitted to the trauma service from 2016 through 2018. There were 3013 and 3249 patients for review in 2016 and 2018, respectively. Total morphine milligram equivalents were 2 402 329 and 1 975 935 in 2016 and 2018, respectively, a 17.7% decrease (P < .001). Concurrently, there was a statistically significant increase in the use of multimodal pain medications. A secondary endpoint was studied to evaluate for changes in acute kidney injury; there was not a statistically significant increase (0.56% versus 0.68%, P = .55). DISCUSSION: Implementation of an MMA guideline significantly reduced opioid use in trauma patients. The use of nonopioid MMA medications increased without an increased incidence of acute kidney injury.

How much green does it take to be orange? Determining the cost associated with trauma center readiness.

BACKGROUND: Readiness costs are real expenses incurred by trauma centers to maintain essential infrastructure to provide emergent services on a 24/7 basis. Although the components for readiness are well described in the American College of Surgeons' Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient, the cost associated with each component is not well defined. We hypothesized that meeting the requirements of the 2014 Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient would result in significant costs for trauma centers. METHODS: The state trauma commission in conjunction with trauma medical directors, program managers, and financial officers of each trauma center standardized definitions for each component of trauma center readiness cost and developed a survey tool for reporting. Readiness costs were grouped into four categories: administrative/program support staff, clinical medical staff, in-house operating room, and education/outreach. To verify consistent cost reporting, a financial auditor analyzed all data. Trauma center outliers were further evaluated to validate variances. All level I/level II trauma centers (n = 16) completed the survey on 2016 data. RESULTS: Average annual readiness cost is US $10,078,506 for a level I trauma center and US $4,925,103 for level IIs. Clinical medical staff was the costliest component representing 55% of costs for level Is and 64% for level IIs. Although education/outreach is mandated, levels I and II trauma centers only spend approximately US $100,000 annually on this category (1%-2%), demonstrating a lack of resources. CONCLUSION: This study defines the cost associated with each component of readiness as defined in the Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient manual. Average readiness cost for a level I trauma center is US $10,078,506 and US $4,925,103 for a level II. The significant cost of trauma center readiness highlights the need for additional trauma center funding to meet the requirements set forth by the American College of Surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and value-based evaluations, level III.

Evaluation of the Georgia trauma system using the American College of Surgeons Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems tool.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Needs Based Assessment of Trauma Systems (NBATS) tool was developed to help determine the optimal regional distribution of designated trauma centers (DTC). The objectives of our current study were to compare the current distribution of DTCs in Georgia with the recommended allocation as calculated by the NBATS tool and to see if the NBATS tool identified similar areas of need as defined by our previous analysis using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification Injury Severity Score (ICISS). METHODS: Population counts were acquired from US Census publications. Transportation times were estimated using digitized roadmaps and patient zip codes. The number of severely injured patients was obtained from the Georgia Discharge Data System for 2010 to 2014. Severely injured patients were identified using two measures: ICISS<0.85 and Injury Severity Score >15. RESULTS: The Georgia trauma system includes 19 level I, II, or III adult DTCs. The NBATS guidelines recommend 21; however, the distribution differs from what exists in the state. The existing DTCs exactly matched the NBATS recommended number of level I, II, or III DTCs in 2 of 10 trauma service areas (TSAs), exceeded the number recommended in 3 of 10 TSAs, and was below the number recommended in 5 of 10 TSAs. Densely populated, or urban, areas tend to be associated with a higher number of existing centers compared with the NBATS recommendation. Other less densely populated TSAs are characterized by large rural expanses with a single urban core where a DTC is located. The identified areas of need were similar to the ones identified in the previous gap analysis of the state using the ICISS methodology. DISCUSSION: The tool appears to underestimate the number of centers needed in extensive and densely populated areas, but recommends additional centers in geographically expansive rural areas. The tool signifies a preliminary step in assessing the need for state-wide inpatient trauma center services. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic, level IV.

Descriptive Analysis of Venous Thromboembolism in Georgia Trauma Centers Compared with National Trauma Centers Participating in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program.

This study was designed to compare the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in Georgia trauma centers with other national trauma centers participating in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP). The use of chemoprophylaxis and characteristics of patients who developed VTE were also examined. We conducted a retrospective observational study of 325,703 trauma admissions to 245 trauma centers from 2013 to 2014. Patient demographics, rate of VTE, as well as the use, type, and timing of chemoprophylaxis were compared between patients admitted to Georgia and non-Georgia trauma centers. The rate of VTE in Georgia trauma centers was 1.9 per cent compared with 2.1 per cent in other national trauma centers. Overall, 49.6 per cent of Georgia patients and 45.5 per cent of patients in other trauma centers had documented chemoprophylaxis. Low molecular weight heparin was the most commonly used medication. Most patients who developed VTE did so despite receiving prophylaxis. The rate of VTE despite prophylaxis was 3.2 per cent in Georgia and 3.1 per cent in non-Georgia trauma centers. Mortality associated with VTE was higher in Georgia trauma centers compared with national TQIP benchmarks. The incidence of VTE and use of chemoprophylaxis within Georgia trauma centers were similar to national TQIP data. Interestingly, most patients who developed VTE in both populations received VTE prophylaxis. Further research is needed to develop best-practice guidelines for prevention, early detection, and treatment in high-risk populations.

Successful Incorporation of Performance Based Payments for Trauma Center Readiness Costs into the Georgia Trauma System.

As quality and outcomes have moved to the fore front of medicine in this era of healthcare reform, a state trauma system Performance Based Payments (PBP) program has been incorporated into trauma center readiness funding. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of a PBP on trauma center revenue. From 2010 to 2016, a percentage of readiness costs funding to trauma centers was placed in a PBP and withheld until the PBP criteria were completed. To introduce the concept, only three performance criteria and 10 per cent of readiness costs funding were tied to PBP in 2010. The PBP has evolved over the last several years to now include specific criteria by level of designation with an increase to 50 per cent of readiness costs funding being tied to PBP criteria. Final PBP distribution to trauma centers was based on the number of performance criteria completed. During 2016, the PBP criteria for Level I and II trauma centers included participation in official state meetings/conference calls, required attendance to American College of Surgeons state chapter meetings, Trauma Quality Improvement Program, registry reports, and surgeon participation in Peer Review Committee and trauma alert response times. Over the seven-year study period, $36,261,469 was available for readiness funds with $11,534,512 eligible for the PBP. Only $636,383 (6%) was withheld from trauma centers. A performance-based program was successfully incorporated into trauma center readiness funding, supporting state performance measures without adversely affecting the trauma center revenue. Future PBP criteria may be aligned to designation standards and clinical quality performance metrics.

A Decade Evaluation of a State Trauma System: Has Access to Inpatient Trauma Care at Designated Trauma Centers Improved?

Recently, the trauma center component of the Georgia trauma system was evaluated demonstrating a 10 per cent probability of increased survival for severely injured patients treated at designated trauma centers (DTCs) versus nontrauma centers. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of a state trauma system to provide access to inpatient trauma care at DTCs for its residents. We reviewed 371,786 patients from the state's discharge database and identified 255,657 treated at either a DTC or a nontrauma center between 2003 and 2012. Injury severity was assigned using the International Classification Injury Severity Score method. Injury was categorized as mild, moderate, or severe. Patients were also categorized by age and injury type. Access improved over time in all severity levels, age groups, and injury types. Although elderly had the largest improvement in access, still only 70 per cent were treated at a DTC. During the study period, increases were noted for all age groups, injury severity levels, and types of injury. A closer examination of the injured elderly population is needed to determine the cause of lower utilization by this age group. Overall, the state's trauma system continues to mature by providing patients with increased access to treatment at DTCs.

An analysis of the effectiveness of a state trauma system: treatment at designated trauma centers is associated with an increased probability of survival.

BACKGROUND: States struggle to continue support for recruitment, funding and development of designated trauma centers (DTCs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the probability of survival for injured patients treated at DTCs versus nontrauma centers. METHODS: We reviewed 188,348 patients from the state's hospital discharge database and identified 13,953 severely injured patients admitted to either a DTC or a nontrauma center between 2008 and 2012. DRG International Classification of Diseases-9th Rev. Injury Severity Scores (ICISS), an accepted indicator of injury severity, was assigned to each patient. Severe injury was defined as an ICISS less than 0.85 (indicating ≥15% probability of mortality). Three subgroups of the severely injured patients were defined as most critical, intermediate critical, and least critical. A full information maximum likelihood bivariate probit model was used to determine the differences in the probability of survival for matched cohorts. RESULTS: After controlling for injury severity, injury type, patient demographics, the presence of comorbidities, as well as insurance type and status, severely injured patients treated at a DTC have a 10% increased probability of survival. The largest improvement was seen in the intermediate subgroup. CONCLUSION: Treatment of severely injured patients at a DTC is associated with an improved probability of survival. This argues for continued resources in support of DTCs within a defined statewide network. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic study, level III.

Characteristics and risk factors of trauma patients readmitted to the ICU within the same hospitalization.

There is little evidence about the characteristics and outcomes of unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) readmission for adult trauma patients. This retrospective study examined the characteristics, risks factors, and outcomes for trauma patients with and without ICU readmission. With 5 years of data, 1117 patients met inclusion criteria for the study. Patient characteristics for readmission included increased age and diabetes, while identified risk factors included increased time between injury and ICU admission, admission from surgery or outside hospital, higher Injury Severity Score, along with glucose, albumin, and lower Glasgow Coma Scale values on the day of ICU discharge.