Diurnal salivary cortisol measurement in the neurosurgical-surgical intensive care unit in critically ill acute trauma patients.

Acute trauma patients represent a specific subgroup of the critically ill population due to sudden and dramatic changes in homeostasis and consequently extreme demands on the activity of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) axis. Salivary cortisol is an accepted surrogate for serum free cortisol in the assessment of HPA axis function. The purpose of this study was (1) to establish the feasibility of salivary cortisol measurement in acute trauma patients in the neurosurgical-surgical intensive care unit (NSICU), and (2) to determine the diurnal pattern of salivary cortisol in the acute phase after injury. Saliva from 50 acute trauma patients was prospectively collected twice a day at 6AM and 4PM during the first week after injury in the NSICU. Mean PM cortisol concentrations were significantly higher in subjects versus controls (p<0.001). Subjects failed to develop the expected PM versus AM decrease in cortisol concentration seen in controls (p=0.005). Salivary cortisol did not vary significantly with baseline Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), Injury Severity Score, sex, injury type, ethnicity, or age. When comparing mean AM and PM salivary cortisol by GCS severity category (GCS ⩽8 and GCS >8) the AM salivary cortisol was significantly higher in patients with GCS ⩽8 (p=0.002). The results show a loss of diurnal cortisol variation in acute trauma patient in the NSICU during the first week of hospitalization. Patients with severe brain injury had higher morning cortisol levels than those with mild/moderate brain injury.

Evaluating treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder with cognitive processing therapy and prolonged exposure therapy in a VHA specialty clinic.

This retrospective chart review evaluates the effectiveness of manualized cognitive processing therapy (CPT) protocols (individual CPT, CPT group only, and CPT group and individual combined) and manualized prolonged exposure (PE) therapy on veterans' posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in one Veterans Health Administration (VHA) specialty clinic. A total of 517 charts were reviewed, and analyses included 178 charts for CPT and 85 charts for PE. Results demonstrated CPT and PE to significantly reduce PTSD Checklist (PCL) scores. However, PE was significantly more effective than CPT after controlling for variables of age, service era, and ethnicity. Additional findings included different outcomes among CPT formats, decreased treatment dropouts for older veterans, and no significant differences in outcome between Hispanic and White veterans. Study limitations and future research directions are discussed.

High ratios of plasma and platelets to packed red blood cells do not affect mortality in nonmassively transfused patients.

BACKGROUND: Administration of high transfusion ratios in patients not requiring massive transfusion might be harmful. We aimed to determine the effect of high ratios of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and platelets (PLT) to packed red blood cells (PRBC) in nonmassively transfused patients. METHODS: Records of 1,788 transfused trauma patients who received <10 units of PRBC in 24 hours at 23 United States Level I trauma centers were reviewed. The relationship between ratio category (low and high) and in-hospital mortality was assessed with propensity-adjusted multivariate proportional hazards models. RESULTS: At baseline, patients transfused with a high FFP:PRBC ratio were younger, had a lower Glasgow Coma Scale score, and a higher Injury Severity Score. Those receiving a high PLT:PRBC ratio were older. The risk of in-hospital mortality did not vary significantly with FFP:PRBC ratio category. Intensive care unit (ICU)-free days, hospital-free days, and ventilator-free days did not vary significantly with FFP:PRBC ratio category. ICU-free days and ventilator-free days were significantly decreased among patients in the high (≥1:1) PLT:PRBC category, and hospital-free days did not vary significantly with PLT:PRBC ratio category. The analysis was repeated using 1:2 as the cutoff for high and low ratios. Using this cutoff, there was still no difference in mortality with either FFP:PRBC ratios or platelet:PRBC ratios. However, patients receiving a >1:2 ratio of FFP:PRBCs or a >1:2 ratio PLT:PRBCs had significantly decreased ICU-free days and ventilator-free days. CONCLUSIONS: FFP:PRBC and PLT:PRBC ratios were not associated with in-hospital mortality. Depending on the threshold analyzed, a high ratio of FFP:PRBC and PLT:PRBC transfusion was associated with fewer ICU-free days and fewer ventilator-free days, suggesting that the damage control infusion of FFP and PLT may cause increased morbidity in nonmassively transfused patients and should be rapidly terminated when it becomes clear that a massive transfusion will not be required.

Validation in a multiple urology practice cohort of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial calculator for predicting prostate cancer detection.

PURPOSE: The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial prostate cancer risk calculator was developed in a clinical trial cohort that does not represent men routinely referred for prostate biopsy. We assessed the generalizability of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial calculator in a cohort more representative of patients referred for consideration of prostate biopsy in American urology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing prostate biopsy by 12 urologists at 5 sites were enrolled in an Early Detection Research Network cohort. The Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator was validated by examining area underneath the receiver operating characteristic curve, sensitivity, specificity and calibration comparing observed vs predicted risk of prostate cancer detection. RESULTS: Cancer incidence was greater (43% vs 22%, p = 0.001) in the Early Detection Research Network validation cohort (645) compared to the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial group (5,519). Early Detection Research Network participants were younger and more racially diverse, and had more abnormal digital rectal examinations and higher prostate specific antigen than Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial participants (all p <0.001). Cancer severity was worse in the Early Detection Research Network cohort than in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (Gleason 7 or higher 60% vs 21%, p <0.001). Nevertheless, the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk calculator was superior to prostate specific antigen alone for predicting cancer in the Early Detection Research Network (AUC 0.691 vs 0.655, p = 0.009) and calibration confirmed that the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial risk score accurately predicted individual risks in the Early Detection Research Network cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the Early Detection Research Network validation cohort and the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial cohort underscore the importance of validating calculator performance in the multicenter urology practice setting. Our findings extend the applicability of the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial calculator for measuring the risk of prostate cancer detection on biopsy to the routine American urology practice setting.