Not all head injured patients on antiplatelet drugs need platelets: Integrating platelet reactivity testing into platelet transfusion guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Antiplatelet medication use continues to rise in an aging population, and these agents can have a deleterious effect for patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICH). The purpose of the current investigation is to assess the safety and efficacy of using platelet reactivity testing (PRT) to direct platelet transfusion for tICH patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Level I trauma center adopted a targeted platelet transfusion guideline using PRT to determine whether platelets were inhibited by an antiplatelet medication (aspirin or P2Y12 inhibitors). Non-inhibited patients were monitored without platelet transfusion, regardless of severity of the head injury. The guideline was analyzed retrospectively to evaluate patient outcomes during the study period (June 2014-December 2016). All patients sustained blunt tICH and received a PRT for known or suspected antiplatelet medication use. Differences were assessed with Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's Exact tests. RESULTS: 166 patients met study inclusion criteria. PRT results indicated that 48 patients (29%) were not inhibited by an antiplatelet medication, and 92% of those patients (n = 44) were spared platelet transfusion. Seven percent (n = 11) of all patients had a clinically significant progression of the head bleed, but this did not differ by inhibition or transfusion status. Implementation of this guideline reduced platelet transfusions by an estimated 30-50% and associated healthcare costs by 42%. CONCLUSIONS: A targeted platelet transfusion guideline using PRT reduced platelet usage for patients with tICH. If appropriately tested, results suggest that not all tICH patients taking or suspected of taking antiplatelet drugs need platelet transfusion. Platelet reactivity testing can significantly reduce healthcare costs and resource usage.

Elective intubation.

Endotracheal intubation is a commonly performed operating room (OR) procedure that provides safe delivery of anesthetic gases and airway protection during surgery. The most common intubation technique in the perioperative environment is direct laryngoscopy with orotracheal tube insertion. Infrequently, difficulties that require an alternative intubation technique are encountered due to patient anatomy, equipment limitations, or patient pathophysiology. Careful patient evaluation, advanced planning, equipment preparation, system redundancy, use of checklists, familiarity with airway algorithms, and availability of additional help when needed during OR intubations have resulted in exceptional success and safety. Airway difficulties during intubation outside the controlled environment of the OR are more frequent and more serious. Translating the intubation processes practiced in the OR to intubations outside the perioperative setting should improve patient safety. This paper considers each step in the OR intubation process in detail and proposes ways of incorporating perioperative procedures into intubations outside the OR. Management of the physiologic impact of intubation, lack of readily available specialized equipment and experienced help, and planning for transfer of care following intubation are all challenges during these intubations.

Delivery of well-child care: a look inside the door.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the delivery of well-child care and its components; to compare that delivery with recommendations in Bright Futures; and to compare delivery of well-child care for children with special health care needs with that for children without special needs. METHODS: Over a 10-week period, 2 medical students observed and documented characteristics of well-child care visits by general pediatricians and midlevel pediatric providers. Parents completed a demographic questionnaire and a screener for children with special health care needs. RESULTS: A total of 483 visits by 43 pediatricians and 9 midlevel providers with patients from 0 to 19 years of age were observed. Adjusted mean visit duration was 20.3 minutes; 38.9% of visits began with an open-ended question about parent/child concerns. A mean of 7.2 health supervision/anticipatory guidance topics were addressed per visit. Clinicians addressed a mean of 42% of Bright Futures-recommended age-specific health supervision/anticipatory guidance topics. Topics addressed less frequently than recommended included family support, parental well-being, behavior/discipline, physical activity, media screen time, risk reduction/substance use, puberty/sex, social-peer interactions, and violence. Shorter visits were associated with asking about parent/child concerns and with addressing greater proportions of recommended health supervision/anticipatory guidance topics. Well-child care visits with children with special health care needs were 36% longer than those with children without special needs and addressed similar numbers of age-specific health supervision/anticipatory guidance topics. More time was spent with children with special health care needs addressing health supervision/anticipatory guidance topics, other conditions (usually their chronic condition), and testing, prescriptions, and referrals. CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing direct observation of visits with pediatric clinicians, we found that solicitation of parent/child concerns occurred less frequently than recommended. Fewer than half of recommended visit-specific health supervision/anticipatory guidance topics were addressed, and there was little congruence with some Bright Futures age group-specific recommendations. Notably, both solicitation of patient/parent concerns and greater adherence to health supervision/anticipatory guidance recommendations were associated with shorter visits. Well-child care visits with children with special health care needs were longer than those with children without special needs; more time was spent addressing similar numbers of health supervision/anticipatory guidance topics as well as their chronic conditions.