Intraoperative hypotensive resuscitation for patients undergoing laparotomy or thoracotomy for trauma: Early termination of a randomized prospective clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Hemorrhagic shock is responsible for one third of trauma related deaths. We hypothesized that intraoperative hypotensive resuscitation would improve survival for patients undergoing operative control of hemorrhage following penetrating trauma. METHODS: Between July 1, 2007, and March 28, 2013, penetrating trauma patients aged 14 years to 45 years with a systolic blood pressure of 90 mm Hg or lower requiring laparotomy or thoracotomy for control of hemorrhage were randomized 1:1 based on a target minimum mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 50 mm Hg (experimental arm, LMAP) or 65 mm Hg (control arm, HMAP). Patients were followed up 30 days postoperatively. The primary outcome of mortality; secondary outcomes including stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, coagulopathy, and infection; and other clinical data were analyzed between study arms using univariate and Kaplan-Meier analyses. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 168 patients (86 LMAP, 82 HMAP patients) before early termination, in part because of clinical equipoise and futility. Injuries resulted from gunshot wounds (76%) and stab wounds (24%); 90% of the patients were male, and the median age was 31 years. Baseline vitals, laboratory results, and injury severity were similar between groups. Intraoperative MAP was 65.5 ± 11.6 mm Hg in the LMAP group and 69.1 ± 13.8 mm Hg in the HMAP group (p = 0.07). No significant survival advantage existed for the LMAP group at 30 days (p = 0.48) or 24 hours (p = 0.27). Secondary outcomes were similar for the LMAP and HMAP groups: acute myocardial infarction (1% vs. 2%), stroke (0% vs. 3%), any renal failure (15% vs. 12%), coagulopathy (28% vs. 29%), and infection (59% vs. 58%) (p > 0.05 for all). Acute renal injury occurred less often in the LMAP than in HMAP group (13% vs. 30%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This study was unable to demonstrate that hypotensive resuscitation at a target MAP of 50 mm Hg could significantly improve 30-day mortality. Further study is necessary to fully realize the benefits of hypotensive resuscitation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level II.

Endovascular management of traumatic peripheral arterial injuries.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic injuries to peripheral arterial vessels are increasingly managed with endovascular techniques. Early small series have suggested that endovascular therapy is feasible and decreases operative blood loss, but these data are limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and outcomes of endovascular management of nonaortic arterial trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed records of traumatic nonaortic arterial injuries presenting at an urban level 1 trauma center from December 2009-July 2013. Patients undergoing treatment in interventional radiology and patients whose injuries occurred >72 h before presentation were excluded. Demographics, indicators of injury severity, operative blood loss, transfusion requirements, and clinical outcome were compared between patients undergoing endovascular and open management using appropriate inferential statistics. RESULTS: During the study period, 17 patients underwent endovascular interventions and 20 had open surgery. There were 19 upper extremity and/or thoracic outlet arterial injuries, 15 lower extremity injuries and 11 pelvic injuries. Endovascular cases were completed using a vascular imaging C-arm in a standard operating room. Estimated blood loss during the primary procedure was significantly lower with endovascular management (150 versus 825 cc, P < 0.001). No differences were observed between cohorts in age, injury severity score, intensive care unit length of stay, arterial pH, transfusion requirements, inpatient complication rate, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with endovascular management demonstrates its feasibility with commonly available tools. Operative blood loss may be significantly decreased using endovascular techniques. Further study is needed to refine patient selection criteria and to define long-term outcomes.

Utility of routine postoperative visit after appendectomy and cholecystectomy with evaluation of mobile technology access in an urban safety net population.

BACKGROUND: The value of routine postoperative visits after general surgery remains unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate the utility of routine postoperative visits after appendectomy and cholecystectomy and to determine access to mobile technology as an alternative platform for follow-up. METHODS: Retrospective review of 219 appendectomies and 200 cholecystectomies performed at a safety net hospital. One patient underwent both surgeries. Patient demographics, duration of clinic visit, and need for additional imaging, tests or readmissions were recorded. Access to mobile technology was surveyed by a validated questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 418 patients, 84% percent completed a postoperative visit. At follow-up, 58 patients (14%) required 70 interventions, including staple removal (16, 23%), suture removal (4, 6%), drain removal (8, 11%), additional follow-up (20, 28%), medication action (16, 21%), additional imaging (3, 4%), and readmission (1, 1%). Occupational paperwork (62) and nonsurgical clinic referrals (28) were also performed. Average check-in to check-out time was 100 ± 54 min per patient. One intervention was performed for every 7.8 h of time in the clinic. Additionally, 88% of the surveyed population reported access to cell phone technology, and 69% of patients <40 y had smartphone access. CONCLUSIONS: Routine in-person follow-up after surgery consumes significant time and resources for patients and healthcare systems but has little impact on patient care. Most of the work done in the clinic is administrative and could be completed using mobile technology, which is pervasive in our population.

Identifying and Eliminating Deficiencies in the General Surgery Resident Core Competency Curriculum.

IMPORTANCE: Although the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has defined 6 core competencies required of resident education, no consensus exists on best practices for reaching resident proficiency. Surgery programs must develop resourceful methods to incorporate learning. While patient care and medical knowledge are approached with formal didactics and traditional Halstedian educational formats, other core competencies are presumed to be learned on the job or emphasized in conferences. OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that our residents lack a foundation in several of the nonclinical core competencies and to seek to develop a formal curriculum that can be integrated into our current didactic time, with minimal effect on resident work hours and rest hours. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Anonymous Likert-type scale needs assessment survey requesting residents within a large single general surgery residency program to rate their understanding, working knowledge, or level of comfort on the following 10 topics: negotiation and conflict resolution; leadership styles; health care legislation; principles of quality delivery of care, patient safety, and performance improvement; business of medicine; clinical practice models; role of advocacy in health care policy and government; personal finance management; team building; and roles of innovation and technology in health care delivery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportions of resident responses scored as positive (agree or strongly agree) or negative (disagree or strongly disagree). RESULTS: In total, 48 surgery residents (70%) responded to the survey. Only 3 topics (leadership styles, team building, and roles of innovation and technology in health care delivery) had greater than 70% positive responses, while 2 topics (negotiation and conflict resolution and principles of quality delivery of care, patient safety, and performance improvement) had greater than 60% positive responses. The remaining topics had less than 40% positive responses, with the least positive responses on the topics business of medicine (13% [6 of 48]) and health care legislation (19% [9 of 48]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: General surgery residents in our program do not report being knowledgeable or comfortable with several areas of the nonclinical Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education core competencies. We developed a formal health care policy and management curriculum, with integration into preexisting protected surgical didactic time. This curriculum fulfills educational requirements, without negatively affecting resident work hours and without increased expense to the department of surgery. Future studies measuring the effect of this integrated program on resident education, knowledge, and satisfaction are warranted.

Assessment and standardization of resident handoff practices: PACT project.

BACKGROUND: Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty hour guidelines have resulted in increased patient care transfers. Although structured hand-over processes are required in the guidelines, how to implement these processes is not defined. The purpose of this study is to investigate current handoff methods at our center in order to develop an effective structured handoff process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective study conducted at two hospitals with large in-house patient censuses. Resident focus groups were used to define current practices and future directions. Based on this input, we developed a direct observation handoff analysis tool to study time spent in handoffs, content, quality, and number of interruptions. RESULTS: Trained medical students observed 86 handoffs. Survey response rates among junior and senior residents were 63% and 54%, respectively. Average daily patient census was 36 ± 10 patients with an average handoff time of 12 ± 9 min. There were 1.5 ± 1.8 interruptions per handoff. The majority of handoffs were unstructured. Based on information they were given in the handoff, junior residents had a 58% rate of incompletion of the assigned tasks and 54% incidence of being unable to answer a key patient status question. CONCLUSIONS: Current handoffs are primarily unstructured, with significant deficits. Determination of key elements of an effective handoff coupled with evaluation of existing deficiencies in our program is essential in developing an institution-specific method for effective handoffs. We propose utilization of the mnemonic PACT (Priority, Admissions, Changes, Task) to standardize handoff communication.

The initial trauma center fluid management of penetrating injury: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Damage-control resuscitation is the prevailing trauma resuscitation technique that emphasizes early and aggressive transfusion with balanced ratios of red blood cells (RBCs), plasma (FFP), and platelets (Plt) while minimizing crystalloid resuscitation, which is a departure from Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) guidelines. It is unclear whether the newer approach is superior to the approach recommended by ATLS. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: With these recent changes pervading resuscitation protocols, we performed a systematic review to determine if the shift in trauma resuscitation from ATLS guidelines to damage control resuscitation has improved mortality in patients with penetrating injuries. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the Current Controlled Trials Register was performed for studies comparing mortality in massively transfused penetrating trauma patients receiving either balanced ratios of blood transfusion per damage control resuscitation tenets or undergoing an alternate blood volume resuscitation strategy. Studies were deemed appropriate for inclusion if they had a Newcastle-Ottawa Scale score of 6 or greater as well as at least 30% penetrating trauma. Twenty studies that reported on a total of 12,154 patients were included. RESULTS: Transfusion ratios varied widely, with 1:1 and 1:2 ratios of FFP:RBC most often defined as high ratios for purposes of comparison with other low ratio groups. Fourteen of 20 studies found significantly lower 30-day mortality when higher transfusion ratios of FFP, RBC, and/or Plt were used; six of 20 studies found mortality to be similar between higher and lower transfusion ratios. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with penetrating injuries who require massive transfusion should be transfused early using balanced ratios of RBC, FFP, and Plt. Randomized, controlled trials are needed to determine optimal ratios for transfusion.

TEG-guided resuscitation is superior to standardized MTP resuscitation in massively transfused penetrating trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: For nearly a decade, our center performed thromboelastograms (TEGs) to analyze coagulation profiles, allowing rapid data-driven blood component therapy. After consensus recommendations for massive transfusion protocols (MTPs), we implemented an MTP in October 2009 with 1:1:1 ratio of blood (red blood cells [RBC]), plasma (fresh-frozen plasma [FFP]), and platelets. We hypothesized that TEG-directed resuscitation is equivalent to MTP resuscitation. METHODS: All patients receiving 6 units (U) or more of RBC in the first 24 hours for 21 months before and after MTP initiation in an urban Level I trauma center were examined. Demographics, mechanism of injury (MOI), Injury Severity Score (ISS), 24-hour volume of RBC, FFP, platelets, crystalloid, and 30-day mortality were compared, excluding patients with traumatic brain injuries. Variables were analyzed using Student's t-test and χ2 or Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: For the preMTP group, there were 165 patients. In the MTP group, there were 124 patients. There were no significant differences in ISS, age, or sex. PreMTP patients with 6U or more RBC had significantly more penetrating MOI (p = 0.017), whereas preMTP patients with 10U or more RBC had similar MOIs. All patients received less crystalloid after MTP adoption (p < 0.001). There was no difference in volume of blood products or mortality in patients receiving 6U or more RBC. Blunt trauma MTP patients who received 10U or more RBC received more FFP (p = 0.02), with no change in mortality. Penetrating trauma patients who received 10U or more RBC received a similar volume of FFP; however, mortality increased from 54.1% for MTP versus 33.3% preMTP (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: TEG-directed resuscitation is equivalent to standardized MTP for patients receiving 6U or more RBC and for blunt MOI patients receiving 10U or more RBC. MTP therapy worsened mortality in penetrating MOI patients receiving 10U or more RBC, indicating a continued need for TEG-directed therapy. A 1:1:1 strategy may not be adequate in all patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.