A second look at the utility of serial routine repeat computed tomographic scans in patients with traumatic brain injury.

BACKGROUND: The practice of a routine repeat head computed tomographic scans in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) is under question. The aim of our study was to evaluate the utility of a more than 1 repeat head computed tomography (M1CT) scans in patients with TBI. METHODS: We performed a 3-year analysis of a prospectively collected database of all TBI patients presenting to our level I trauma center. Patients who received M1CT scans were included. Findings and reason (without neurologic decline vs after neurologic decline) for M1CT were recorded. Primary outcome measure was neurosurgical intervention. RESULTS: A total of 296 patients that underwent M1CT were included. Of those, 291 patients (98.6%) had M1CT without a neurologic decline, and neurosurgical intervention was performed in 1 patient (.3%) who was inexaminable (Glasgow coma scale score = 6). The remaining (n = 5) had M1CT due to a neurologic decline; 4 patients (80%) of the 5 had worsening of ICH; and neurosurgical intervention was performed in 3 (75%) of the 4 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The practice of multiple repeat head computed tomographic scans should be limited to inexaminable patients or patients with neurological deterioration.

Prevalence of Domestic Violence Among Trauma Patients.

IMPORTANCE: Domestic violence is an extremely underreported crime and a growing social problem in the United States. However, the true burden of the problem remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the reported prevalence of domestic violence among trauma patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 6-year (2007-2012) retrospective analysis of the prospectively maintained National Trauma Data Bank. Trauma patients who experienced domestic violence and who presented to trauma centers participating in the National Trauma Data Bank were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis codes (995.80-995.85, 995.50, 995.52-995.55, and 995.59) and E codes (E967.0-E967.9). Patients were stratified by age into 3 groups: children (≤18 years), adults (19-54 years), and elderly patients (≥55 years). Trend analysis was performed on April 10, 2014, to assess the reported prevalence of domestic violence over the years. PARTICIPANTS: Trauma patients presenting to trauma centers participating in the National Trauma Data Bank. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: To assess the reported prevalence of domestic violence among trauma patients. RESULTS: A total of 16 575 trauma patients who experienced domestic violence were included. Of these trauma patients, 10 224 (61.7%) were children, 5503 (33.2%) were adults, and 848 (5.1%) were elderly patients. The mean (SD) age was 15.9 (20.6), the mean (SD) Injury Severity Score was 10.9 (9.6), and 8397 (50.7%) were male patients. Head injuries (46.8% of patients) and extremity fractures (31.2% of patients) were the most common injuries. A total of 12 515 patients (75.1%) were discharged home, and the overall mortality rate was 5.9% (n = 980). The overall reported prevalence of domestic violence among trauma patients was 5.7 cases per 1000 trauma center discharges. The prevalence of domestic violence increased among children (14.0 cases per 1000 trauma center discharges in 2007 to 18.5 case per 1000 trauma center discharges in 2012; P = .001) and adults (3.2 cases per 1000 discharges in 2007 to 4.5 cases per 1000 discharges in 2012; P = .001) over the 6-year period and remained unchanged for elderly patients (0.8 cases per 1000 discharges in 2007 to 0.96 cases per 1000 discharges in 2012; P = .09). On subanalysis of adults and elderly patients, the prevalence of domestic violence increased among both female (4.6 cases per 1000 discharges in 2007 to 5.3 cases per 1000 discharges in 2012; P = .001) and male patients (1.5 cases per 1000 discharges in 2007 to 2.8 cases per 1000 discharges in 2012; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Domestic violence is prevalent among trauma patients. Over the years, the reported prevalence of domestic violence has been increasing among children and adults, and continues to remain high among female trauma patients. A robust mandatory screening for evaluating domestic violence among trauma patients, along with a focused national intervention, is warranted.

Impact of Hemorrhagic Shock on Pituitary Function.

BACKGROUND: Hypopituitarism after hypovolemic shock is well established in certain patient cohorts. However; the effects of hemorrhagic shock on pituitary function in trauma patients remains unknown. The aim of this study was to assess pituitary hormone variations in trauma patients with hemorrhagic shock. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with acute traumatic hemorrhagic shock presenting to our level 1 trauma center were prospectively enrolled. Hemorrhagic shock was defined as systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤ 90 mmHg on arrival or within 10 minutes of arrival in the emergency department, and requirement of ≥2 units of packed red blood cell transfusion. Serum cortisol and serum pituitary hormones (vasopressin [ADH], adrenocorticotrophic hormone [ACTH], thyroid stimulating hormone [TSH], follicular stimulating hormone [FSH], and luteinizing hormone [LH]) were measured in each patient on admission and at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours after admission. Outcome measure was variation in pituitary hormones. RESULTS: A total of 42 patients were prospectively enrolled; mean age was 37 ± 12 years, mean SBP 85.4 ± 64.5 mmHg, and median Injury Severity Score was 26 (range 18 to 38). There was an increase in the levels of cortisol (p < 0.001), a decrease in the levels of ACTH (p < 0.001) and ADH (p < 0.001), but no change in the levels of LH (p = 0.30), FSH (p = 0.07), and TSH (p = 0.89) over 96 hours. Ten patients died during their hospital stay. Patients who died had higher mean admission ADH levels (p = 0.03), higher mean admission ACTH levels (p < 0.001), and lower mean admission cortisol levels (p = 0.04) compared with patients who survived. CONCLUSIONS: Acute hypopituitarism does not occur in trauma patients with acute hemorrhagic shock. In patients who died, there was a decrease in cortisol levels, which appears to be adrenal in origin.

Certified acute care surgery programs improve outcomes in patients undergoing emergency surgery: A nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Differences in outcomes among trauma centers (TCs) and non-TCs (NTCs) in patients undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS) are well established. However; the impact of development of certified acute care surgery (ACS) programs on patient outcomes remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes in patients undergoing EGS across TCs, NTCs, and TCs with ACS (ACS-TC). METHODS: National estimates for EGS procedures were abstracted from the National Inpatient Sample database. Patients undergoing emergent procedures (appendectomy, cholecystectomy, hernia repair, as well as small and large bowel resections) were included. TCs were identified based on American College of Surgeons' verification. ACS-TC programs were recorded from the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Outcome measures were hospital length of stay, complications, and mortality. Regression analysis was performed after adjusting for age, sex, race, Charlson comorbidity index, and type of procedure. RESULTS: A total of 131,410 patients undergoing EGS were analyzed. Patients managed in ACS-TCs had shorter hospital stay (p = 0.045) and lower complication rate (p = 0.041) compared with patients managed in both TCs and NTCs. There was no difference in mortality in patients managed across the groups; however, there was a trend toward lower mortality in patients managed in ACS-TCs in comparison with TCs (p = 0.064) and NTCs (p = 0.089). The overall hospital costs were lower for patients managed in ACS-TCs compared with TCs (p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: TCs with ACS have improved outcomes in EGS procedures compared with both TCs and non-TCs. ACS training with the associated infrastructure standards may contribute to these improved outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management study, level IV.