Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Am Surg ; 90(3): 427-435, 2024 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37703078

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that the addition of a third-level trauma activation would improve outcomes by formalizing an evaluation process for patients in need of urgent evaluation who did not meet the criteria for full or partial trauma alert activation. METHODS: Admission records for all trauma patients admitted between 2000 and 2021 were obtained. The gamma alert trauma activation was implemented in 2011. A washout period of 6 months was used to account for adjustment to the new protocol. Propensity score matching was performed based on ISS scores, age, injury mechanism, and best-validated comorbidities to create a balanced patient distribution. Patients with missing data were excluded from this study. The association between era and outcomes was determined using logistic and linear regression analyses. RESULTS: The matched cohort was well balanced (SMD <.1, all balanced covariates) and included 18,572 patients. Patients in the gamma alert era had decreased ED dwell time, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Readmission rates and rates of upgrade to ICU status were reduced in the gamma alert era. This era was also associated with lower rates of renal failure, UTI, and pneumonia. There was no significant difference in mortality following implementation of the gamma alert. DISCUSSION: Implementation of the gamma alert was associated with an improvement in ED dwell times, fewer unplanned admissions to the ICU, decreased readmissions, and a reduction in other in-hospital events. We believe that this reflects improved triage of patients to the ICU and more effective care of trauma patients.


Subject(s)
Trauma Centers , Wounds and Injuries , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Intensive Care Units , Injury Severity Score , Regression Analysis , Length of Stay , Wounds and Injuries/diagnosis , Wounds and Injuries/therapy
2.
Tech Vasc Interv Radiol ; 24(2): 100750, 2021 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34602275

ABSTRACT

Management of acute complicated Type B aortic dissection (TBAD) requires a multidisciplinary approach with careful evaluation and understanding of the complicating features. Patients who present with or progress to a complicated TBAD must be triaged and managed rapidly due to the high morbidity and mortality even in the presence of optimal medical, endovascular, and open therapies. When required, invasive therapies can be broken down most simply into four treatments: thoracic endograft placement, aortic fenestration, branch vessel stenting, and open repair. However, which therapy to offer and in which order is often unclear. In this review, focus is placed on clinical presentation, diagnosis, and explanation for one or a combination of these therapies. In addition, contraindications as well as expected outcomes, complications, and adjunct therapies will be reviewed. The advent of advanced endovascular techniques has certainly improved the immediate morbidity and mortality of acute complicated TBAD; however, much remains to learn about patient selection and therapeutic intervention performed.


Subject(s)
Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic , Aortic Dissection , Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation , Endovascular Procedures , Aortic Dissection/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Dissection/surgery , Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic/diagnostic imaging , Aortic Aneurysm, Thoracic/surgery , Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation/adverse effects , Endovascular Procedures/adverse effects , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...