Tabitha Garwe

Directness of transport of major trauma patients to a level I trauma center: a propensity-adjusted survival analysis of the impact on short-term mortality.

BACKGROUND Whether severely injured patients should be transported directly to tertiary trauma centers, bypassing closer nontertiary facilities, or be transported first to nearby, less-specialized facilities for immediate care and stabilization has been studied with mixed findings. Differences in study locale, case mix, and variation in the structure and level of maturation of the trauma system may explain some of the discrepancy in findings. In addition, risk adjustment strategies used in these studies did not take into account prehospital baseline characteristics as well as time since injury. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of 1,998 patients treated at a Level I trauma center between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007. Propensity-adjusted survival analyses were used to compare short-term mortality outcomes in transferred versus directly transported major trauma patients. RESULTS A total of 1,398 patients were transported directly to the Level I trauma center and 600 patients were transferred from lower level facilities. After adjusting for the propensity to be transported directly, age, injury severity score, severe head injury, emergency medical service or emergency department intubation, comorbid conditions, and time to definitive Level I trauma care, the 2-week mortality risk in transferred patients was almost three-fold that of patients transported directly to a Level I trauma center (hazard ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.31-5.6). CONCLUSION Transferred patients in a predominantly rural region are at an increased risk of short-term mortality. This suggests that severely injured patients should be transported directly to tertiary trauma centers. For patients requiring immediate stabilization at nontertiary facilities, this should be performed promptly without unnecessary delays.

Survival Benefit of Transfer to Tertiary Trauma Centers for Major Trauma Patients Initially Presenting to Nontertiary Trauma Centers

OBJECTIVES Recent evidence suggests a measurable reduction in mortality for patients transferred from a nontertiary trauma center (Level III or IV) to a Level I trauma center, but not for those transferred to a Level II trauma center. Whether this can be generalized to a predominantly rural region with fewer tertiary trauma care resources is uncertain. This study sought to evaluate mortality differences for patients initially presenting to nontertiary trauma centers in a predominantly rural region depending on transfer status. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of patients initially presenting to 104 nontertiary trauma centers in Oklahoma and meeting the states criteria for major trauma. Patients dying within 1 hour of emergency department (ED) arrival at the nontertiary trauma center were excluded. The exposure variable of interest was admission status, which was categorized as either transfer to a tertiary (Level I or II) trauma center within 24 hours or admission to a nontertiary trauma center. Propensity scores were used to minimize the selection bias inherent in the decision to admit or transfer a patient for higher-level care. Multiple logistic regression was used to generate three propensity score models: probability of transfer to either a Level I or II, Level I only, and Level II only. Propensity scores were then included as a covariate in multivariable Cox regression models assessing outcome differences between admitted and transferred patients. The outcome of interest was 30-day mortality, defined as death at either the nontertiary trauma center or the tertiary trauma center within 30 days of arrival at the initial Level III/IV centers ED. RESULTS A total of 6,229 patients met study criteria, of whom 2,669 (43%) were transferred to tertiary trauma centers. Of those transferred, 1,422 patients (53%) were transferred to a Level I trauma center. Crude mortality was lower for patients transferred to tertiary trauma centers compared to those remaining at nontertiary trauma facilities (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48 to 0.72). After adjusting for the propensity to be transferred, Injury Severity Score (ISS), presence of severe head injury, and age, transfer to a tertiary trauma center was associated with a significantly lower 30-day mortality (HR = 0.38; 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.50) compared to admission and treatment at a nontertiary trauma center. The observed survival benefit was similar for patients transferred to a Level I trauma center (HR = 0.36; 95% CI = 0.20 to 0.4) and those transferred to a Level II center (HR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.61). CONCLUSIONS This study suggests a survival benefit among patients initially presenting to nontertiary trauma centers who are subsequently transferred to tertiary trauma centers compared to those remaining in nontertiary trauma centers, even after adjusting for variables affecting the likelihood of transfer. Although this survival benefit was larger for patients treated at a Level I trauma center, Level II trauma centers in a region with few tertiary trauma resources demonstrated a measurable benefit as well.

The use of laparoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of blunt and penetrating abdominal injuries: 10-year experience at a level 1 trauma center.

BACKGROUND Diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) has decreased the rate of nontherapeutic laparotomy for patients suffering from penetrating injuries. We evaluated whether DL similarly lowers the rate of nontherapeutic laparotomy for patients with blunt injuries. METHODS All patients undergoing DL over a 10-year period (ie, 2001-2010) in a single level 1 trauma center were classified by the mechanism of injury. Demographic and perioperative data were compared using the Student t and Fisher exact tests. RESULTS There were 131 patients included, 22 of whom sustained blunt injuries. Patients suffering from blunt injuries were more severely injured (Injury Severity Score 18.0 vs 7.3, P = .0001). The most common indication for DL after blunt injury was a computed tomographic scan concerning for bowel injury (59.1%). The rate of nontherapeutic laparotomy for patients sustaining penetrating vs blunt injury was 1.8% and nil, respectively. CONCLUSIONS DL, when coupled with computed tomographic findings, is an effective tool for the initial management of patients with blunt injuries.

A Propensity Score Analysis of Prehospital Factors and Directness of Transport of Major Trauma Patients to a Level I Trauma Center

BACKGROUND Indications for direct transport may be strongly related to risk of future health outcomes, and these indications may not be adequately controlled by considering only in-hospital variables. This study was designed to identify prehospital factors associated with directness of transport. METHODS The study included 2,062 patients treated at a Level I trauma center between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2007. The outcome of interest was directness of transport to a Level I trauma center. A propensity score analysis was used to identify demographic, clinical, distance, and other injury scene-related variables associated with the probability of direct transport. RESULTS A total of 1,459 patients were directly transported to the Level I trauma center and 603 were transferred from lower level facilities. Patients were more likely to be transported directly if they had lower Glasgow Comma Scale scores, had penetrating injuries, were involved in traffic-related injuries, were closer to a Level IV or I trauma center, and if an advanced life support emergency medical service agency transported them from the scene. Patients were more likely to initially stop if they required advanced airway management, met at least one anatomic criterion, were further away from a Level I trauma center, or closer to an intermediate facility. CONCLUSIONS Confounding due to unadjusted prehospital factors may be present in studies evaluating the impact of directness of transport on short-term mortality outcomes. Propensity score analysis of treatment indications provides an additional and efficient method to reduce this bias.

Initial inferior vena cava diameter on computed tomographic scan independently predicts mortality in severely injured trauma patients.

BACKGROUND In the trauma population, patients with physiologic compromise may present with “normal” vital signs. We hypothesized that the inferior vena cava (IVC) diameter could be used as a surrogate marker for hypovolemic shock and predict mortality in severely injured trauma patients. METHODS A retrospective cohort study was performed at a Level I trauma center on 161 severely injured adult (aged ≥16 years) trauma patients who were transported from the scene and underwent abdominal computed tomography within 1 hour. Exposure of interest was dichotomously defined as having an infrarenal transverse to anteroposterior IVC ratio of ≥1.9 (flat IVC) or <1.9 (not exposed) based on the area under the curve analysis. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Covariates included initial heart rate, systolic blood pressure, bicarbonate, base excess, creatinine, hemoglobin, and Injury Severity Score (ISS). Correlation analysis between IVC ratio and other known markers of hypoperfusion was performed. Logistic regression was used to determine the independent effect of the IVC ratio on mortality. RESULTS Of the 161 patients, 30 had a flat IVC. The IVC ratio had a significant (p < 0.05) inverse correlation with initial bicarbonate, hemoglobin, and base excess and a direct correlation with Cr and ISS. After controlling for age, ISS, and presence of severe head injury, patients who had a flat IVC were 8.1 times (95% confidence interval, 1.5–42.9) more likely to die compared with the nonexposed cohort. Importantly, heart rate and systolic blood pressure had no predictive value in this patient population. CONCLUSION A flat IVC on initial abdominal computed tomographic scan has a significant correlation with other known markers of shock and is an independent predictor of mortality in severely injured trauma patients. This finding should heighten the awareness of the need for aggressive intervention and potential for physiological decompensation in patients with otherwise “normal” vital signs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic study, level III.

Retrievable inferior vena cava filters in trauma patients: factors that influence removal rate and an argument for institutional protocols.

BACKGROUND Trauma patients at risk for pulmonary embolism, but with contraindications for anticoagulation therapy, often have retrievable inferior vena cava filters (RIVCF) placed. This study evaluated factors associated with the recovery rate of the device (RIVCFs) with the goal of developing an institutional protocol to ensure timely removal. METHODS This was a case-control study of 88 trauma patients who underwent RIVCF placement at a level 1 trauma center between 2006 and 2010. RESULTS The overall retrieval rate was 58%, declining from 89% in 2006 to 50% in 2009. Factors independently associated with filter nonretrieval included increasing age, increase in number of providers, comorbidity, hospital discharge from the intensive care unit, and discharge to a long-term acute care facility or skilled nursing facility. In 2010, a protocol was implemented and the retrieval rate increased to 73%. CONCLUSIONS In a large institution where a number of providers may be responsible for filter management, implementation of a protocol appears to improve retrieval rates.

Preoperative symptom duration predicts success in relieving abdominal pain caused by biliary dyskinesia in a pediatric population

PURPOSE The objective of this study was to identify factors associated with symptom relief in pediatric patients treated with laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) for biliary dyskinesia (BD). METHODS This was a case-control study of pediatric patients diagnosed with BD between January 2004 and June 2011. Controls were patients with symptom resolution and cases were patients who did not experience symptom relief. RESULTS Fifty patients met study eligibility, of whom 43 were controls and 7 were cases. Mean follow-up for the cohort was 26.5months. Unadjusted comparisons suggested no significant differences (p>0.05) between the two groups in the distribution of demographic and clinical variables with the exception of preoperative duration of symptoms and presence of comorbidity. After adjusting for comorbidities, the only significant predictor associated with the resolution of symptoms after surgery was preoperative duration of symptoms (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.15-0.94); 96% of patients with symptoms<12months had symptom relief versus 70% with symptoms≥12months. CONCLUSION Symptoms associated with BD can be successfully relieved with LC. These data suggest patients with preoperative symptoms for less than 12months are the most likely to have symptom relief after surgery.

Direct transport of geriatric trauma patients with pelvic fractures to a Level I trauma center within an organized trauma system: impact on two-week incidence of in-hospital complications

BACKGROUND Undertriage of elderly trauma patients to tertiary trauma centers is well documented. This study evaluated the impact of directness of transport to a Level I trauma center on morbidity in geriatric trauma patients sustaining severe pelvic fractures. METHODS This was a retrospective cohort study of 87 geriatric trauma patients diagnosed with potentially unstable pelvic fractures, treated at a Level I trauma center between 2008 and 2010. RESULTS Of the 87 patients, 39% (34 of 87) initially were transported to a nontertiary trauma center. After adjusting for presence of comorbidity and injury severity, the 2-week incidence of complications was 54% higher in transferred patients compared with those directly transported (rate ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, .95-2.54). In particular, transferred patients had increased odds of developing pneumonia/systemic inflammatory response syndrome. CONCLUSIONS Despite lacking precision, results of this study suggest an increased risk of complications in transferred geriatric trauma patients with severe pelvic fractures compared with their directly transported counterparts.

Diagnostic performance of major depression disorder case-finding instruments used among mothers of young children in the United States: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION Growing recognition of the interrelated negative outcomes associated with major depression disorder (MDD) among mothers and their children has led to renewed public health interest in the early identification and treatment of maternal MDD. Healthcare providers, however, remain unsure of the validity of existing case-finding instruments. We conducted a systematic review to identify the most valid maternal MDD case-finding instrument used in the United States. METHODS We identified articles reporting the sensitivity and specificity of MDD case-finding instruments based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) by systematically searching through three electronic bibliographic databases, PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE, from 1994 to 2014. Study eligibility and quality were evaluated using the Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies guidelines respectively. RESULTS Overall, we retrieved 996 unduplicated articles and selected 74 for full-text review. Of these, 14 articles examining 21 different instruments were included in the systematic review. The 10 item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale and Postpartum Depression Screening Scale had the most stable (lowest variation) and highest diagnostic performance during the antepartum and postpartum periods (sensitivity range: 0.63-0.94 and 0.67-0.95; specificity range: 0.83-0.98 and 0.68-0.97 respectively). Greater variation in diagnostic performance was observed among studies with higher MDD prevalence. LIMITATION Factors that explain greater variation in instrument diagnostic performance in study populations with higher MDD prevalence were not examined. DISCUSSION Findings suggest that the diagnostic performance of maternal MDD case-finding instruments is peripartum period-specific.

Out-of-hospital and Inter-hospital Under-triage to Designated Tertiary Trauma Centers among Injured Older Adults: A 10-year Statewide Geospatial-Adjusted Analysis

Abstract Objective: While out-of-hospital under-triage of seriously injured older adults to tertiary trauma centers has long been acknowledged, no study has adjusted for place of injury or evaluated the extent of inter-facility under-triage. We sought to determine distance and confounder adjusted odds of treatment at a tertiary trauma center (TTC) for older adult trauma patients compared to younger trauma patients, for patients transported from the scene of injury and those transferred from a non-tertiary trauma (NTTC) center. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from a statewide trauma registry reported over a 10-year period (2005–14). The outcome of interest was treatment at an American College of Surgeons or state-designated Level I/II trauma center (TTC). The predictor variable of interest was age group (> = 55 years vs. < 55 years). Covariates of interest included patient demographics, clinical characteristics and various distance measures calculated based on the patients injury location. Results: 84 930 patients met study criteria. Of these 42% (35659) were 55 years and older with an average age of 74 years (SD, 11.6). Older adult patients were on average, injured slightly farther away from a TTC (median distance, 34 vs. 29 miles, p < 0.001). Among patients initially presenting to NTTCs, older adults were significantly more likely to be transferred to another NTTC (53% vs. 34%). After adjusting for confounders and distance measures, older adults were less likely to be treated at TTCs overall (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.52–0.56), whether transported by EMS from the scene of injury (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.44–0.50) or via inter-facility transfer (OR = 0.63, 95%CI: 0.59–0.68). Conclusions: Injured older adults face significant under-triage to TTCs whether by EMS from the scene of injury or via transfer from NTTCs. Adjusting for proximity of injury to a TTC does not alter these findings.