Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Trauma Patients: Different Criteria, Different Rates.

BACKGROUND: No consensus exists regarding the definition of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Even within a single institution, inconsistent diagnostic criteria result in conflicting rates of VAP. As a Level 1 trauma center participating in the Trauma Quality Improvement Project (TQIP) and the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN), our institution showed inconsistencies in VAP rates depending on which criteria was applied. The purpose of this study was to compare VAP definitions, defined by culture-based criteria, National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) and NHSN, using incidence in trauma patients. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of consecutive trauma patients who were diagnosed with VAP and met pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria admitted to our rural, 861-bed, Level 1 trauma and tertiary care center between January 2008 and December 2011 was performed. These patients were identified from the National Trauma Registry of the American College of Surgeons (NTRACS) database and an in-house infection control database. Ventilator-associated pneumonia diagnosis criteria defined by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (used by the NHSN), the NTDB, and our institutional, culture-based criteria gold standard were compared among patients. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-nine patients were diagnosed with VAP (25.4% met NHSN criteria, 88.2% met NTDB, and 76.3% met culture-based criteria). Only 58 (20.1%) patients met all three criteria. When NHSN criteria were compared with culture-based criteria, NHSN showed a high specificity (92.5%) and low sensitivity (28.2%). The positive predictive value (PPV) was 84.5%, but the negative predictive value (NPV) was 47.1%. The agreement between the NHSN and the culture-based criteria was poor (κ = 0.18). Conversely, the NTDB showed a lower specificity (57.8%), but greater sensitivity (86.4%) compared with culture-based criteria. The PPV and NPV were both 74% and the two criteria showed fair agreement (κ = 0.41). CONCLUSIONS: The lack of standard diagnostic criteria for VAP resulted in variable reporting to different agencies. Emphasis on establishing a consensus VAP definition should be undertaken.

Perioperative management of obese patients.

Obesity prevalence has quadrupled since the 1980s in the United States. It is estimated that 30% of the population is obese or has a body mass index of greater than or equal to 30 as defined by the World Health Organization. Surgeons are likely to engage in the care of obese patients and need to be adept in every aspect of the patients' care in order to have a successful hospital course. There is significant controversy in perioperative management of obese patients. This article discusses perioperative management of obese patients to provide guidelines, education, and discussion of current issues.

Lung protective ventilation (ARDSNet) versus airway pressure release ventilation: ventilatory management in a combined model of acute lung and brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant lung/brain traumatic injury results in significant morbidity and mortality. Lung protective ventilation (Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network [ARDSNet]) has become the standard for managing adult respiratory distress syndrome; however, the resulting permissive hypercapnea may compound traumatic brain injury. Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) offers an alternative strategy for the management of this patient population. APRV was hypothesized to retard the progression of acute lung/brain injury to a degree greater than ARDSNet in a swine model. METHODS: Yorkshire swine were randomized to ARDSNet, APRV, or sham. Ventilatory settings and pulmonary parameters, vitals, blood gases, quantitative histopathology, and cerebral microdialysis were compared between groups using χ2, Fisher's exact, Student's t test, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and mixed-effects repeated-measures modeling. RESULTS: Twenty-two swine (17 male, 5 female), weighing a mean (SD) of 25 (6.0) kg, were randomized to APRV (n = 9), ARDSNet (n = 12), or sham (n = 1). PaO2/FIO2 ratio dropped significantly, while intracranial pressure increased significantly for all three groups immediately following lung and brain injury. Over time, peak inspiratory pressure, mean airway pressure, and PaO2/FIO2 ratio significantly increased, while total respiratory rate significantly decreased within the APRV group compared with the ARDSNet group. Histopathology did not show significant differences between groups in overall brain or lung tissue injury; however, cerebral microdialysis trends suggested increased ischemia within the APRV group compared with ARDSNet over time. CONCLUSION: Previous studies have not evaluated the effects of APRV in this population. While our macroscopic parameters and histopathology did not observe a significant difference between groups, microdialysis data suggest a trend toward increased cerebral ischemia associated with APRV over time. Additional and future studies should focus on extending the time interval for observation to further delineate differences between groups.

When birds can't fly: an analysis of interfacility ground transport using advanced life support when helicopter emergency medical service is unavailable.

BACKGROUND: Helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) transport of trauma patients is costly and of unproven benefit. Recent retrospective studies fail to control for crew expertise and therefore compare highly trained advance life support with less-trained basic life support crews. The purpose of our study was to compare HEMS with ground, interfacility transport while controlling for crew training. We hypothesized that patients transported by HEMS would experience shorter interhospital transport time and reduced mortality. METHODS: Our National Trauma Registry of the American College of Surgeons database was retrospectively queried to identify consecutive interfacility, hospital transfers (January 1, 2008, to November 1, 2012) to our Level I trauma center. Transfers were stratified by transportation vehicle (i.e., HEMS vs. ground transport). Cohorts were compared across standard demographic and clinical variables using univariate analysis. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the association of these variables with mortality. RESULTS: The HEMS (n = 2,190) and ground (n = 223) cohorts were well matched overall, with no significant differences for demographics, injury severity, physiology, hospital length of stay, or complications. Median (interquartile range) time to definitive care was significantly lower for HEMS (150 [114] minutes vs. 255 [157] minutes, p < 0.001), without change in mortality (9.0% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.71). Multivariate logistic regression did not identify an association between transport mode and mortality. CONCLUSION: Despite faster interfacility transport times, HEMS offered no mortality benefit compared with ground when crew expertise was controlled for, contradicting recent large, retrospective National Trauma Data Bank studies. Our study may represent the best approximation of a prospective study by focusing on patients deemed worthy of HEMS by referring providers. Although HEMS may seem intuitively beneficial for time-dependent injuries, larger studies with a similar methodology are warranted to justify the cost and risk of HEMS and identify subsets of patients who may benefit. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III.