RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
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.
