Global Surgery: Effective Involvement of US Academic Surgery: Report of the American Surgical Association Working Group on Global Surgery.

: There is an unacceptably high burden of death and disability from conditions that are treatable by surgery, worldwide and especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The major actions to improve this situation need to be taken by the surgical communities, institutions, and governments of the LMICs. The US surgical community, including the US academic surgical community, has, however, important roles to play in addressing this problem. The American Surgical Association convened a Working Group to address how US academic surgery can most effectively decrease the burden from surgically treatable conditions in LMICs. The Working Group believes that the task will be most successful (1) if the epidemiologic pattern in a given country is taken into account by focusing on those surgically treatable conditions with the highest burdens; (2) if emphasis is placed on those surgical services that are most cost-effective and most feasible to scale up; and (3) if efforts are harmonized with local priorities and with existing global initiatives, such as the World Health Assembly with its 2015 resolution on essential surgery. This consensus statement gives recommendations on how to achieve those goals through the tools of academic surgery: clinical care, training and capacity building, research, and advocacy. Through all of these, the ethical principles of maximally and transparently engaging with and deferring to the interests and needs of local surgeons and their patients are of paramount importance. Notable benefits accrue to US surgeons, trainees, and institutions that engage in global surgical activities.

The prevalence of chronic deep venous thrombosis in trauma: Implications for hospitals and patients.

INTRODUCTION: Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) is considered a preventable complication in trauma patients. Hospitals risk financial penalties for DVT rates above accepted benchmarks. These penalties do not apply to chronic DVT, which develops before admission. Lower-extremity duplex ultrasound (LEDUS) can detect characteristics of thrombus chronicity, allowing differentiation of chronic from acute DVT. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of chronic DVT in hospitalized trauma patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of trauma patients admitted to our Level I trauma center between July 1, 2006 and October 31, 2016 who had a DVT on initial screening LEDUS. Our center utilizes screening and surveillance LEDUS for patients admitted more than 48 hours. Definitions for chronic and acute DVT were extracted from existing literature. Patients with DVT on initial LEDUS underwent review of that LEDUS to assess clot chronicity and were classified as having acute DVT, chronic DVT, or DVT of indeterminate age. Demographic data, medical history, and injury characteristics were collected. Patients with acute DVT and those with chronic DVT were compared. RESULTS: The prevalence of chronic DVT among patients with a DVT on initial LEDUS was 29.9%. Chronic DVT occurred in patients who were older and less severely injured. An above-knee component was significantly more common in chronic DVT (65%). Only 34 (41%) of those with chronic DVT reported a history of DVT. Among the patients with chronic DVT, 44 (53%) had a subsequent LEDUS, of whom 4 (9%) showed thrombus progression and 6 (14%) formed a new DVT. CONCLUSION: Lower-extremity duplex ultrasound can identify chronic DVT, which represents nearly 30% of all DVT found on initial screening LEDUS in trauma patients. Those with chronic DVT should receive pharmacologic and mechanical prophylaxis because of the incidence of progression and new acute DVT. They should also be counseled regarding the possibilities of recurrence and chronic venous insufficiency. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, level III.

Hereditary thrombophilia in trauma patients with venous thromboembolism: Is routine screening necessary?

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE), including deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), remains a common complication following trauma. The role of hereditary thrombophilia (HT) in posttraumatic VTE is unknown. In the general population with a first-time DVT, Factor V Leiden (FVL) and prothrombin G20210A mutation (PGM) are the most common types of HT with an incidence of 20% to 25% and 6% to 18%, respectively. The objective of this study was to identify the incidence of FVL and PGM in posttraumatic VTE to determine whether routine screening for HT in trauma should be performed. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study at our Level I trauma center from 2013 to 2016 when 70 patients with posttraumatic DVT and PE were screened for FVL and PGM. Demographics, injury characteristics, and established risk factors for VTE were collected for each patient. Statistical analysis was performed to compare patients with and without HT. RESULTS: The incidence of FVL and PGM in posttraumatic VTE was 1.4% and 5.7%, respectively. All HT-positive patients had a DVT and one had an associated PE. Both the individual risk factors and the total number of risk factors for VTE were similar between the HT-positive group and the HT-negative group. CONCLUSION: There was a lower incidence of FVL and PGM in patients with posttraumatic DVT than in patients with a first-time DVT in the general population. HT does not appear to significantly contribute to posttraumatic VTE in our trauma population. Further research is warranted to determine whether routine screening for HT in trauma should be performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level III; Care management/therapeutic study, level IV.

Risk factors for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism after traumatic injury: A competing risks analysis.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism, including deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE), is typically reported as a composite measure of the quality of trauma center care. Given that recent data suggesting postinjury DVT and PE are distinct clinical processes, a better understanding may result from analyzing them as independent, competing events. Using competing risks analysis, we evaluated our hypothesis that the risk factors and timing of postinjury DVT and PE are different. METHODS: We examined all adult trauma patients admitted to our Level I trauma center from July 2006 to December 2011 who received at least one surveillance duplex ultrasound of the lower extremities and who were at high risk or greater for DVT. Outcomes included DVT and PE events, and time-to-event from admission. We used competing risks analysis to evaluate risk factors for DVT while accounting for PE as a competing event, and vice versa. RESULTS: Of 2,370 patients, 265 (11.2%) had at least one venous thromboembolism event, 235 DVT only, 19 PE only, 11 DVT and PE. Within 2 days of admission, 38% of DVT cases had occurred compared with 26% of PE. Competing risks modeling of DVT as primary event identified older age, severe injury (Injury Severity Score, ≥ 15), mechanical ventilation longer than 4 days, active cancer, history of DVT or PE, major venous repair, male sex, and prophylactic enoxaparin and prophylactic heparin as associated risk factors. Modeling of PE as the primary event showed younger age, nonsevere injury (Injury Severity Score, < 15), central line placement, and prophylactic heparin as relevant factors. CONCLUSION: The risk factors for PE and DVT after injury were different, suggesting that they are clinically distinct events that merit independent consideration. Many DVT events occurred early despite prophylaxis, bringing into question the preventability of postinjury DVT. We recommend trauma center quality reporting program measures be revised to account for DVT and PE as unique events. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic, level III.

The rate of deep vein thrombosis doubles in trauma patients with hypercoagulable thromboelastography.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in trauma can occur in patients at low risk. Conventional coagulation tests do not predict VTE. Studies investigating thromboelastography (TEG) for VTE risk are conflicting and have not included routine surveillance to detect deep vein thrombosis (DVT). We undertook a prospective study of TEG to evaluate its utility in predicting VTE. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study on all adult trauma patients admitted to our Level I trauma center from 2013 to 2015. TEG was performed immediately on arrival to the trauma bay. Hypercoagulable TEG was defined as reaction time (R) below, angle (α) above, or maximum amplitude (MA) above reference ranges. All patients received mechanical and/or pharmacologic prophylaxis and were followed up for DVT with our ultrasound surveillance protocol. The primary outcome was lower-extremity DVT. After bivariate analysis of variables related to DVT, those with p values of 0.100 or less were included for multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 983 patients were evaluated with TEG on admission; of these, 684 (69.6%) received at least one surveillance ultrasound during the index admission. Lower-extremity DVT was diagnosed in 99 (14.5%) patients. Hypercoagulability based on admission TEG occurred in 582 (85.1%) patients. The lower-extremity DVT rate was higher in patients with hypercoagulable TEG than in those without hypercoagulable TEG (15.6% vs. 8%; p = 0.039). Multivariate analysis showed hypercoagulable TEG remained associated with DVT after adjustment for relevant covariates available at admission, with an odds ratio of 2.41 (95% confidence interval, 1.11-5.24; p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: Most trauma patients were hypercoagulable at admission and remained at risk of developing DVT. The rate of DVT doubled in patients with hypercoagulable TEG indices despite prophylaxis. Beyond its current clinical roles, TEG is useful for assessing DVT risk, particularly in patients otherwise perceived to be at low risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level II.

Vena Cava Filter Use in Trauma and Rates of Pulmonary Embolism, 2003-2015.

IMPORTANCE: Vena cava filter (VCF) placement for pulmonary embolism (PE) prophylaxis in trauma is controversial. Limited research exists detailing trends in VCF use and occurrence of PE over time. OBJECTIVE: To analyze state and nationwide temporal trends in VCF placement and PE occurrence from 2003 to 2015 using available data sets. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective trauma cohort study was conducted using data from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcome Study (PTOS) (461 974 patients from 2003 to 2015), the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) (5 755 095 patients from 2003 to 2014), and the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample (NIS) (24 449 476 patients from 2003 to 2013) databases. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Temporal trends in VCF placement and PE rates, filter type (prophylactic or therapeutic), and established predictors of PE (obesity, pregnancy, cancer, deep vein thrombosis, major procedure, spinal cord paralysis, venous injury, lower extremity fracture, pelvic fracture, central line, intracranial hemorrhage, and blood transfusion). Prophylactic filters were defined as VCFs placed before or without an existing PE, while therapeutic filters were defined as VCFs placed after a PE. RESULTS: Of the 461 974 patients in PTOS, the mean (SD) age was 47.2 (26.4) and 61.6% (284 621) were men; of the 5 755 095 patients in NTDB, the mean age (SD) was 42.0 (24.3) and 63.7% (3 666 504) were men; and of the 24 449 476 patients in NIS, the mean (SD) age was 58.0 (25.2) and 49.7% (12 160 231) were men. Of patients receiving a filter (11 405 in the PTOS, 71 029 in the NTDB, and 189 957 in the NIS), most were prophylactic VCFs (93.6% in the PTOS, 93.5% in the NTDB, and 93.3% in the NIS). Unadjusted and adjusted temporal trends for the PTOS and NTDB showed initial increases in filter placement followed by significant declines (unadjusted reductions in VCF placement rates, 76.8% in the PTOS and 53.3% in the NTDB). The NIS demonstrated a similar unadjusted trend, with a slight increase and modest decline (22.2%) in VCF placement rates over time; however, adjusted trends showed a slight but significant increase in filter rates. Adjusted PE rates for the PTOS and NTDB showed significant initial increases followed by slight decreases, with limited variation during the declining filter use periods. The NIS showed an initial increase in PE rates followed by a period of stagnation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Despite a precipitous decline of VCF use in trauma, PE rates remained unchanged during this period. Taking this association into consideration, VCFs may have limited utility in influencing rates of PE. More judicious identification of at-risk patients is warranted to determine individuals who would most benefit from a VCF.

The evolution of care improves outcome in blunt thoracic aortic injury: A Western Trauma Association multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The management of blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) has evolved radically in the last decade with changes in the processes of care and the introduction of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR). These changes have wrought improved outcome, but the direct effect of TEVAR on outcome remains in question as previous studies have lacked vigorous risk adjustment and long-term follow-up. To address these knowledge gaps, we compared the outcomes of TEVAR, open surgical repair, and nonoperative management for BTAI. METHODS: Eight verified trauma centers recruited from the Western Trauma Association Multicenter Study Group retrospectively studied all patients with BTAI admitted between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2016. Data included demographics, comorbidities, admitting physiology, injury severity, in-hospital care, and outcome. RESULTS: We studied 316 patients with BTAI; 57 (18.0%) were in extremis and died before treatment. Of the 259 treated surgically, TEVAR was performed in 176 (68.0%), open in 28 (10.8%), hybrid in 4 (1.5%), and nonoperative in 51 (19.7%). Thoracic endovascular aortic repair and open repair groups had similar Injury Severity Scale score, chest Abbreviated Injury Scale score, Trauma and Injury Severity Score, and probability of survival, but differed in median age (open: 28 [interquartile range {IQR}, 19-51]; TEVAR: 46 [IQR, 28-60]; p < 0.007), zone of aortic injury (p < 0.001), and grade of aortic injury (open: 6 [IQR, 4-6]; TEVAR: 2 [IQR, 2-4]; p < 0.001). The overall in-hospital mortality was 6.6% (TEVAR: 5.7%, open: 10.7%, nonoperative: 3.9%; p = 0.535). Of the 240 patients who survived to discharge, two died (one at 9 months and one at 8 years); both were managed with TEVAR, but the deaths were unrelated to the aortic procedure. Stent graft surveillance computed tomography scans were not obtained in 37.6%. CONCLUSIONS: The mortality of BTAI continues to decrease. Thoracic endovascular aortic repair, when anatomically suitable, should be the treatment of choice. Open repair remains necessary for more proximal injuries. Process improvement in computed tomography imaging in follow-up of TEVAR is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, level III.

"Delay to operating room" fails to identify adverse outcomes at a Level I trauma center.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma devised process audit filters to identify opportunities for improvement (OFI), prevent adverse outcomes, and improve quality. Delay to the operating room for primary trauma laparotomy is a process audit filter that has not been definitively associated with improved outcomes. We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of delay to the operating room of greater than 2 hours (DOR) to independently identify an adverse outcome or an OFI at our Level I trauma center. METHODS: Trauma patients who underwent primary exploratory laparotomy from July 2006 to March 2015 were reviewed. Those with DOR were identified and compared with those without DOR. To analyze the ability of DOR to independently identify an adverse outcome or an OFI, DOR patients were further divided into those with isolated DOR and those with DOR in conjunction with one or more other process audit filter. Primary outcome was the presence of a complication. Secondary outcome was an identified OFI. Medical records of patients with either outcome were reviewed to determine if the outcome resulted directly from DOR. RESULTS: Of 472 patients, 109 (23%) had DOR and 363 (77%) did not. There were no significant differences in age, sex, or injury severity between the two groups. The rates of complications among DOR patients and those without DOR were not significantly different (35% vs. 38%, p = 0.59). The DOR was the only process audit filter flagged in 31(28%) patients in the DOR group. This subgroup had no identified complications but incurred two OFIs; neither OFI was associated with an adverse outcome. CONCLUSION: In trauma patients undergoing primary exploratory laparotomy, DOR fails to independently identify adverse outcomes. These findings suggest that DOR, as a routinely collected process audit filter, is not an effective indicator of suboptimal care or adverse outcomes at a Level I trauma center. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV; prognostic study, level III.

Routine neurosurgical consultation is not necessary in mild blunt traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: The Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines provide indications for neurosurgical intervention in traumatic brain injury (TBI) with moderate or severe intracranial hemorrhage (ICH). In TBI patients with less severe ICH, the utility of neurosurgical consultation remains unclear. We sought to determine if routine neurosurgical consultation is necessary for mild blunt TBI patients with ICH. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 500 consecutive blunt TBI patients aged 15 years or older with Glasgow Coma Scale score of ≥13 and ICH on initial head computed tomography admitted to a Level I trauma center over 28 months. Outcomes were neurosurgical intervention (craniotomy, craniectomy, ventriculostomy, or intracranial pressure monitor placement) and in-hospital mortality. Statistical significance was assessed at a p < 0.05. RESULTS: Of 500 patients, 49 (9.8%) underwent neurosurgical intervention. Neurosurgical intervention was more frequent in male patients (75.5% vs. 61.2%, p = 0.049), patients with higher head Abbreviated Injury Scale score (4.7 vs. 3.8, p < 0.0001), patients with an abnormal initial neurological examination (30.6% vs. 12.6%, p = 0.001), or patients with skull fracture (28.6% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.026) and was associated with higher mortality (8.2% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.010). Neurosurgical intervention was not associated with intoxication, preinjury antiplatelet/anticoagulation agents, or progression of ICH on second head computed tomography. Neurosurgical consultation was documented in 466 patients (93.2%). For patients without neurosurgical intervention, consultation did not change management. CONCLUSION: Routine neurosurgical consultation for blunt TBI with ICH seems unnecessary, regardless of intoxication or preinjury antiplatelet or anticoagulation therapy. A more selective approach is warranted to decrease hospital charges and optimize use of neurosurgical consultation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management study, level IV.

Sarcopenia as a predictor of mortality in elderly blunt trauma patients: Comparing the masseter to the psoas using computed tomography.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia, or age-related loss of muscle mass, is measurable by computed tomography (CT). In elderly trauma patients, increased mortality is associated with decreased psoas muscle cross-sectional area (P-Area) on abdominal CT. Fall is the leading cause of injury in the elderly, and head CT is more often obtained. Masseter muscle cross-sectional area (M-Area) is readily measured on head CT. Hypothesizing that M-Area is a satisfactory surrogate for P-Area, we compared the two as markers of sarcopenia and increased mortality in elderly trauma patients. METHODS: All blunt-injured patients aged 65 years or older admitted to our trauma center during 2010 were included. Two-year postdischarge mortality was identified by matching records to county, state, and national death indices. Bilateral M-Area was measured on admission head CT at 2 cm below the zygomatic arch. Bilateral P-Area was measured on abdominal CT at the fourth vertebral body. Average M-Area and P-Area values were calculated for each patient. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the relationship of M-Area and P-Area with mortality. Model predictive performance was calculated using concordance statistics. RESULTS: Among 487 patients, 357 with M-Area and 226 with P-Area were identified. Females had smaller M-Area (3.43 cm vs 4.18 cm; p < 0.050) and P-Area (6.50 cm vs 10.9 cm; p < 0.050) than males. Masseter muscle cross-sectional area correlated with P-Area (rho, 0.38; p < 0.001). Adjusted Cox regression models revealed decreased survival associated with declining M-Area (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.96) and P-Area (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.00). Masseter muscle cross-sectional area and P-Area discriminated equally well in best-fit models. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly trauma patients, M-Area is an equally valid and more readily available marker of sarcopenia and 2-year mortality than P-Area. Future study should validate M-Area as a metric to identify at-risk patients who may benefit from early intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III.

Frailty in trauma: A systematic review of the surgical literature for clinical assessment tools.

BACKGROUND: Elderly trauma patients have outcomes worse than those of similarly injured younger patients. Although patient age and comorbidities explain some of the difference, the contribution of frailty to outcomes is largely unknown because of the lack of assessment tools developed specifically to assess frailty in the trauma population. This systematic review of the surgical literature identifies currently available frailty clinical assessment tools and evaluates the potential of each instrument to assess frailty in elderly patients with trauma. METHODS: This review was registered with PROSPERO (the international prospective register of systematic reviews, registration number CRD42014015350). Publications in English from January 1995 to October 2014 were identified by a comprehensive search strategy in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL, supplemented by manual screening of article bibliographies and subjected to three tiers of review. Forty-two studies reporting on frailty assessment tools were selected for analysis. Criteria for objectivity, feasibility in the trauma setting, and utility to predict trauma outcomes were formulated and used to evaluate the tools, including their subscales and individual items. RESULTS: Thirty-two unique frailty assessment tools were identified. Of those, 4 tools as a whole, 2 subscales, and 29 individual items qualified as objective, feasible, and useful in the clinical assessment of trauma patients. The single existing tool developed specifically to assess frailty in trauma did not meet evaluation criteria. CONCLUSION: Few frailty assessment tools in the surgical literature qualify as objective, feasible, and useful measures of frailty in the trauma population. However, a number of individual tool items and subscales could be combined to assess frailty in the trauma setting. Research to determine the accuracy of these measures and the magnitude of the contribution of frailty to trauma outcomes is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, level III.

Determining the magnitude of surveillance bias in the assessment of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis: A prospective observational study of two centers.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in trauma. Controversy exists regarding the use of lower extremity duplex ultrasound screening and surveillance (LEDUS). Advocates cite earlier diagnosis and treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) to prevent clot propagation and pulmonary embolism (PE). Opponents argue that LEDUS identifies more DVT (surveillance bias) but does not reduce the incidence of PE. We sought to determine the magnitude of surveillance bias associated with LEDUS and test the hypothesis that LEDUS does not decrease the incidence of PE after injury. METHODS: We compared data from two Level 1 trauma centers: Scripps Mercy Hospital, which used serial LEDUS, and Christiana Care Health System, which used LEDUS only for symptomatic patients. Beginning in 2013, both centers prospectively collected data on demographics, injury severity, and VTE risk for patients admitted for more than 48 hours. Both centers used mechanical and pharmacologic prophylaxis based on VTE risk assessment. RESULTS: Scripps Mercy treated 772 patients and Christiana Care treated 454 patients with similar injury severity and VTE risk. The incidence of PE was 0.4% at both centers. The odds of a DVT diagnosis were 5.3 times higher (odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval, 2.5-12.9; p < 0.0001) for patients admitted to Scripps Mercy than for patients admitted to Christiana Care. Of the 80 patients who developed DVT, PE, or both, 99% received prophylaxis before the event. Among those who received pharmacologic prophylaxis, the VTE rates between the two centers were not statistically significantly different (Scripps Mercy, 11% vs. Christiana Care, 3%; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: The odds of a diagnosis of DVT are increased significantly when a program of LEDUS is used in trauma patients. Neither pharmacologic prophylaxis nor mechanical prophylaxis is completely effective in preventing VTE in trauma patients. VTE should not be considered a "never event" in this cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level III; therapeutic study, level III.

Aspirin as added prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis in trauma: A retrospective case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Current prophylaxis does not completely prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in trauma patients. Recent data suggest that platelets may be a major contributor to hypercoagulability after trauma, indicating a potential role for antiplatelet medications in prophylaxis for DVT. We sought to determine if preinjury aspirin use was associated with a reduced incidence of lower extremity DVT in trauma patients. METHODS: Using a retrospective case-control design, we matched 110 cases of posttrauma lower extremity DVT one-to-one with controls using seven covariates: age, admission date, probability of death, number of DVT risk factors, sex, mechanism of injury, and presence of head injury. Data collected included 26 risk factors for DVT, prehospital medications, and in-hospital prophylaxis. Logistic regression models were created to examine the relationship between prehospital aspirin use and posttrauma DVT. RESULTS: Preinjury aspirin was used by 7.3% of cases (patients diagnosed with in-hospital DVT) compared with 13.6% of controls (p = 0.1). Aspirin was associated with a significant protective effect in multivariate analysis, with an odds ratio of 0.17 (95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.68; p = 0.012) in the most complete model. When stratified by other antithrombotic use, aspirin showed a significant effect only when used in combination with heparinoid prophylaxis (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.93; p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: Preinjury aspirin use seems to significantly lower DVT rate following injury. This association is strongest when heparinoid prophylaxis is prescribed after patients on preinjury aspirin therapy are admitted. Aspirin as added prophylaxis for DVT in trauma patients needs to be further evaluated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiologic study, level III.

Attenuation of cardiovascular stress with sympatholytics does not improve survival in patients with severe isolated traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown improved survival after traumatic brain injury (TBI) with the administration of sympatholytics, including ß-blockers and clonidine, which is thought to attenuate the cardiovascular stress response. However, the use of sympatholytics has not been studied in patients with isolated severe TBI (ISTBI). We hypothesized that ISTBI patients receiving sympatholytics who demonstrated a reduction in cardiovascular stress would have improved outcomes compared with similarly injured patients without these cardiovascular changes. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 338 ISTBI patients (head Abbreviated Injury Scale [AIS] score > 3 and associated injury AIS score < 1) admitted to a Level I trauma center from 2010 through 2014. All patients were managed according to Brain Trauma Foundation guidelines. Demographic, clinical, and survival probability data were gathered. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Cardiovascular stress was assessed using the rate-pressure product (RPP = systolic blood pressure × heart rate / 100) calculated both before and after sympatholytic administration. Associations between independent variables and mortality were adjusted for total hospital length of stay. RESULTS: Among ISTBI patients, observed mortality was 6% (n = 20), while predicted mortality by Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) was 11% (n = 38). Administration of sympatholytics was associated with reduction in RPP in univariate analysis (p = 0.035). After adjusting for length of stay, neither receipt of ß-blockers nor reduction in RPP was associated with survival. Mean reduction in RPP among survivors was not different from that among nonsurvivors (-4.0% vs. -11.9%, p = 0.148). In addition, RPP reduction among patients who received sympatholytics occurred at the same rate in survivors as nonsurvivors (67% vs. 68%, p = 0.894). Severity of head injury, intraventricular hemorrhage, and any intracranial operative intervention were significantly associated with mortality. CONCLUSION: Although sympatholytic administration is associated with a significant decrease in RPP, the survival benefit seen in patients with multiple injuries with TBI is not observed among ISTBI patients. Further research on the role of sympatholysis in the management of ISTBI is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.