Clinical Implications of Over- and Under-Triage Using Need for Trauma Intervention and Cribari Indices.

BACKGROUND: Need for Trauma Intervention (NFTI) score was proposed to help identify injured trauma patients while minimizing under (UT) and over triage (OT). Using a national database, we aimed to describe UT and OT of NFTI vs standard Cribari method (CM) and hypothesized triage sensitivity remains poor. METHODS: The 2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database was queried. Demographics, mechanism, verification level, interfacility transfer (IF), and level of activation were collected. Patients were stratified by both NFTI [+ vs -] and CM [Injury severity score (ISS) < 15 vs > 15]. UT was defined as NFTI + or ISS >15 without full trauma activation. RESULTS: 1,030,526 patients were identified in TQIP. 84,969 were UT and 97,262 were OT using NFTI while 94,020 were UT and 108,823 were OT using CM. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of NFTI is 49%, 89%, 45%, and 90%, respectively vs 43%, 87%, 39%, and 89% of CM, respectively. Age was higher in the UT group using both scores (52 vs 42, P < .0001 and 54 vs 42, P < .0001, respectively). Using MLR, level 2 and 3 verification, blunt mechanism, female, IF, and older age were associated with UT in both NFTI and CM. Level 1 verification, penetrating mechanism, male, no IF, and younger age were associated with OT. CONCLUSIONS: Current prehospital triage criteria have poor sensitivity for identifying severely injured trauma patients by both NFTI and CM. UT increases as age of the patient increases. Further studies are needed to improve triage.

Gestalt clinical severity score (GCSS) as a predictor of patient severity of illness or injury.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if clinical judgement is accurate to predict the severity of injury or illness, and can be used at patient arrival when other formal scoring systems are not yet available. DESIGN: A multicenter pilot study using a prospective observational convenience sample of patients arriving by EMS to the emergency department (ED) or Trauma Center. SETTING: Two urban, Level 1 trauma centers at academic tertiary care hospitals. PATIENTS: Medical and trauma patients age 18 and older transported by EMS (N = 216). Exclusion criteria (prior to arrival): intubation, assisted ventilation (BVM or NPPV), CPR in progress, prisoners, or previously present motor or speech deficits. MEASUREMENTS: Completion of a novel 15-point scale of Verbal, Motor, and Facial Expression within 1-2 min of arrival by a clinician outside of the treatment team. Primary endpoint was the immediate disposition from the ED or Trauma Center: Home, Brief Observation (<24 h), Admission to Floor, ICU (OR and IR as surrogates since these patients ultimately go to the ICU), or Morgue. RESULTS: Univariate analysis revealed a strong, positive monotonic correlation between GCSS and disposition (Rho = 0.693, p < .0001). Multivariable logistic regression revealed the "best" model included GCSS and age (group 18-44 years old versus all the other age groups) (p < .0001). There was a 156% increase in the odds of being discharged home (versus being admitted) for a one-unit increase in GCSS (OR = 2.56, 95% CI 1.94, 3.37). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians can make accurate predictions of severity of injury and illness using a gestalt method and the scoring system we have developed as patient disposition correlates well with GCSS score. GCSS is most accurate with the 18-44 age group.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for tube thoracostomy placement in trauma: a practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

Background: Antibiotic prophylaxis is routinely administered for most operative procedures, but their utility for certain bedside procedures remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis and developed evidence-based recommendations on whether trauma patients receiving tube thoracostomy (TT) for traumatic hemothorax or pneumothorax should receive antibiotic prophylaxis. Methods: Published literature was searched through MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Elsevier), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Wiley), Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov databases by a professional librarian. The date ranges for our literature search were January 1900 to March 2020. A systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available evidence were performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Results: Fourteen relevant studies were identified and analyzed. All but one were prospective, with eight being prospective randomized control studies. Antibiotic prophylaxis protocols ranged from a single dose at insertion to 48 hours post-TT removal. The pooled data showed that patients who received antibiotic prophylaxis were significantly less likely to develop empyema (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.86, p=0.01). The benefit was greater in patients with penetrating injuries (penetrating OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.59, p=0.002, vs blunt OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.12, p=0.07). Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis did not significantly affect pneumonia incidence or mortality. Discussion: In adult trauma patients who require TT insertion, we conditionally recommend antibiotic prophylaxis be given at the time of insertion to reduce incidence of empyema. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018088759.

Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Trial: Comparison of pre-injury antithrombotic use and reversal strategies among severe traumatic brain injury patients.

BACKGROUND: Trauma teams are often faced with patients on antithrombotic (AT) drugs, which is challenging when bleeding occurs. We sought to compare the effects of different AT medications on head injury severity and hypothesized that AT reversal would not improve mortality in severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. METHODS: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored prospective, multicentered, observational study of 15 trauma centers was performed. Patient demographics, injury burden, comorbidities, AT agents, and reversal attempts were collected. Outcomes of interest were head injury severity and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Analysis was performed on 2,793 patients. The majority of patients were on aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid [ASA], 46.1%). Patients on a platelet chemoreceptor blocker (P2Y12) had the highest mean Injury Severity Score (9.1 ± 8.1). Patients taking P2Y12 inhibitors ± ASA, and ASA-warfarin had the highest head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) mean (1.2 ± 1.6). On risk-adjusted analysis, warfarin-ASA was associated with a higher head AIS (odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34-4.42) after controlling for Injury Severity Score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, initial Glasgow Coma Scale score, and initial systolic blood pressure. Among patients with severe TBI (head AIS score, ≥3) on antiplatelet therapy, reversal with desmopressin (DDAVP) and/or platelet transfusion did not improve survival (82.9% reversal vs. 90.4% none, p = 0.30). In severe TBI patients taking Xa inhibitors who received prothrombin complex concentrate, survival was not improved (84.6% reversal vs. 84.6% none, p = 0.68). With risk adjustment as described previously, mortality was not improved with reversal attempts (antiplatelet agents: OR 0.83; 85% CI, 0.12-5.9 [p = 0.85]; Xa inhibitors: OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.12-4.64; p = 0.77). CONCLUSION: Reversal attempts appear to confer no mortality benefit in severe TBI patients on antiplatelet agents or Xa inhibitors. Combination therapy was associated with severity of head injury among patients taking preinjury AT therapy, with ASA-warfarin possessing the greatest risk. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level II.

Evaluation and management of blunt cerebrovascular injury: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVIs) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This guideline evaluates several aspects of BCVI diagnosis and management including the role of screening protocols, criteria for screening cervical spine injuries, and the use of antithrombotic therapy (ATT) and endovascular stents. METHODS: Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, a taskforce of the Practice Management Guidelines Committee of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available evidence. Four population, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions were developed to address diagnostic and therapeutic issues relevant to BCVI. RESULTS: A total of 98 articles were identified. Of these, 23 articles were selected to construct the guidelines. In these studies, the detection of BCVI increased with the use of a screening protocol versus no screening protocol (odds ratio [OR], 4.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-12.78; p = 0.002), as well as among patients with high-risk versus low-risk cervical spine injuries (OR, 12.7; 95% CI, 6.24-25.62; p = 0.003). The use of ATT versus no ATT resulted in a decreased risk of stroke (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.65; p < 0.0001) and mortality (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.08-0.34; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the risk of stroke among patients with Grade II or III injuries who underwent stenting as an adjunct to ATT versus ATT alone (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.2-12.14; p = 0.63). CONCLUSION: We recommend using a screening protocol to detect BCVI in blunt polytrauma patients. Among patients with high-risk cervical spine injuries, we recommend screening computed tomography angiography to detect BCVI. For patients with low-risk risk cervical injuries, we conditionally recommend performing a computed tomography angiography to detect BCVI. We recommend the use of ATT in patients diagnosed with BCVI. Finally, we recommend against the routine use of endovascular stents as an adjunct to ATT in patients with Grade II or III BCVIs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Guidelines, Level III.