Wendy L. Wahl

Operative repair or endovascular stent graft in blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries: results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study is to assess the early efficacy and safety of endovascular stent grafts (SGs) in traumatic thoracic aortic injuries and compare outcomes with the standard operative repair (OR). PATIENTS Prospective, multicenter study. Data for the following were collected: age, blood pressure, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) at admission, type of aortic injury, injury severity score, abbreviate injury scale (AIS), transfusions, survival, ventilator days, complications, and intensive care unit and hospital days. The outcomes between the two groups (open repair or SG) were compared, adjusting for presence of critical extrathoracic trauma (head, abdomen, or extremity AIS >3), GCS score </=8, systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, and age >55 years. Separate multivariable analysis was performed, one for patients without and one for patients with associated critical extrathoracic injuries (head, abdomen, or extremity AIS >3), to compare the outcomes of the two therapeutic modalities adjusting for hypotension, GCS score </=8, and age >55 years. RESULTS One hundred ninety-three patients met the criteria for inclusion. Overall, 125 patients (64.9%) were selected for SG and 68 (35.2%) for OR. SG was selected in 71.6% of the 74 patients with major extrathoracic injuries and in 60.0% of the 115 patients with no major extrathoracic injuries. SG patients were significantly older than OR patients. Overall, 25 patients in the SG group (20.0%) developed 32 device-related complications. There were 18 endoleaks (14.4%), 6 of which needed open repair. Procedure-related paraplegia developed in 2.9% in the OR and 0.8% in the SG groups (p = 0.28). Multivariable analysis adjusting for severe extrathoracic injuries, hypotension, GCS, and age, showed that the SG group had a significantly lower mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 8.42; 95% CI: [2.76-25.69]; adjusted p value <0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (adjusted mean difference: 4.98; 95% CI: [0.14-9.82]; adjusted p value = 0.046) than the OR group. Among the 115 patients without major extrathoracic injuries, higher mortality and higher transfusion requirements were also found in the OR group (adjusted odds ratio for mortality: 13.08; 95% CI [2.53-67.53], adjusted p value = 0.002 and adjusted mean difference in transfusion units: 4.45; 95% CI [1.39-7.51]; adjusted p value = 0.004). Among the 74 patients with major extrathoracic injuries, significantly higher mortality and pneumonia rate were found in the OR group (adjusted p values 0.04 and 0.03, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that centers with high volume of endovascular procedures had significantly fewer systemic complications (adjusted p value 0.001), fewer local complications (adjusted p value p = 0.033), and shorter hospital lengths of stay (adjusted p value 0.005) than low-volume centers. CONCLUSIONS Most surgeons select SG for traumatic thoracic aortic ruptures, irrespective of associated injuries, injury severity, and age. SG is associated with significantly lower mortality and fewer blood transfusions, but there is a considerable risk of serious device-related complications. There is a major and urgent need for improvement of the available endovascular devices.

Diagnosis and treatment of blunt thoracic aortic injuries: changing perspectives.

BACKGROUND The diagnosis and management of blunt thoracic aortic injuries has undergone many significant changes over the last decade. The present study compares clinical practices and results between an earlier prospective multicenter study by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma completed in 1997 (AAST1) and a new similar study completed in 2007 (AAST2). METHODS The AAST1 study included 274 patients from 50 participating centers over a period of 30 months. The AAST2 study included 193 patients from 18 centers, over a period of 26 months. The comparisons between the two studies included the method of definitive diagnosis of the aortic injury [computed tomography (CT) scan, aortography, transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) or magnetic resonance imaging], the method of definitive aortic repair (open repair vs. endovascular repair, clamp and sew vs. bypass techniques), the time from injury to procedure (early vs. delayed repair), and outcomes (survival, procedure-related paraplegia, other complications). RESULTS There was a major shift of the method of definitive diagnosis of the aortic injury, from aortography in the AAST1 to CT scan in AAST2, and a nearly complete elimination of aortography and TEE in the AAST2 study. In the AAST2 study the diagnosis was made by CT scan in 93.3%, aortography in 8.3%, and TEE in 1.0% of patients when compared with 34.8%, 87.0%, and 11.9%, respectively, in the AAST1 study (p < 0.001). The mean time from injury to aortic repair increased from 16.5 hours in the AAST1 study to 54.6 hours in the AAST2 study (p < 0.001). In the AAST1 study, all patients were managed with open repair, whereas in the AAST2 study only 35.2% were managed with open repair and the remaining 64.8% were managed with endovascular stent-grafts. In the patients managed with open repair, the use of bypass techniques increased from 64.7% to 83.8%. The overall mortality, excluding patients in extremis, decreased significantly from 22.0% to 13.0% (p = 0.02). Also, the incidence of procedure-related paraplegia in patients with planned operation, decreased from 8.7% to 1.6% (p = 0.001). However, the incidence of early graft-related complications increased from 0.5% in the AAST1 to 18.4% in the AAST2 study. CONCLUSIONS Comparison between the two AAST studies in 1997 and 2007 showed a major shift in the diagnosis of the aortic injury, with the widespread use of CT scan and the almost complete elimination of aortography and TEE. The concept of delayed definitive repair has gained wide acceptance. Endovascular repair has replaced open repair to a great extent. These changes have resulted in a major reduction of mortality and procedure-related paraplegia but also a significant increase of early graft-related complications.

Practice management guidelines for geriatric trauma: the EAST Practice Management Guidelines Work Group.

Advanced age is a well-recognized risk factor for adverse outcomes after trauma. A substantial body of literature, much of it cited within this article, demonstrates increased morbidity and mortality in geriatric trauma patients compared with their younger counterparts. Whether this outcome difference is because of the decreased physiologic reserve that accompanies aging, a higher incidence of preexisting medical conditions in the geriatric patient, or other factors yet to be identified remains unclear. It is clear, however, that good outcomes can be achieved in this patient population when appropriately aggressive trauma care is directed toward geriatric patients with survivable injuries. Implicit in the above statement is the need to identify, as soon as possible after injury, those patients who will benefit from aggressive resuscitation, timely injury management, and posttrauma rehabilitation. It is equally important, however, to limit these intensive and expensive treatment modalities to patients whose injuries are not only survivable but also compatible with an acceptable quality of life. Our purpose in developing this guideline was to provide the trauma practitioner with some evidence-based recommendations that could be used to guide decision-making in the care of the geriatric trauma patient. We began this process by first developing a series of questions, the answers to which we hoped could be supported by the existing scientific literature. The initial set of questions were as follows: 1. Is age itself a marker of increased morbidity/ mortality? If so, what age should be used? 2. Is age instead a surrogate for increased preexisting conditions (PECs)? If so, which premorbid conditions are particularly predictive of poor outcomes? 3. Should age itself be a criterion for triage from the field directly to a trauma center, regardless of Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, Trauma Score (TS), and so forth? If so, what age should be used? 4. Do trauma centers have better outcomes with geriatric trauma than nontrauma centers? 5. Are there specific injuries, scores (e.g., Injury Severity Score [ISS], TS, GCS score), or PEC/age combinations in geriatric trauma patients that are so unlikely to be survivable that a nonaggressive approach from the outset could be justified? 6. What resuscitation end-points should be used for the geriatric trauma patient? 7. Should all geriatric trauma patients receive invasive hemodynamic monitoring? If so, what specific types of monitoring should be used? If not, which geriatric patients benefit from invasive monitoring? Unfortunately, after examining the available literature, it is clear that evidence-based responses to all of the questions raised above are not possible. As the evidentiary tables demonstrate, there are few, if any, prospective, randomized, controlled trials that definitively address any of the above issues. Second, there is a lack of uniformity as to a specific age criterion for geriatric trauma. As shown in the evidentiary tables, geriatric trauma is variously defined in the literature as age greater than or equal to 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, and even 80 years of age. There is even literature support for increased mortality from trauma beginning at age 45! Furthermore, because age is a continuous variable, and not a dichotomous one, adverse outcomes associated with geriatric trauma are likely to increase in a continuous fashion with age as opposed to a stepwise leap as a given patient reaches a specific age. Third, there is no concise definition of a geriatric trauma patient. In some studies, all patients over a given age are included, whereas in others, patients with penetrating injuries, burns, and minor injuries, such as slip-and-falls, are excluded. Some studies include all patients regardless of hemodynamic instability or injury severity, whereas others impose strict entrance criteria or exclude patients who do not survive for a predetermined period of time after admission. Such lack of uniformity regarding inclusion criteria makes it Submitted for publication October 3, 2001. Accepted for publication September 16, 2002. Copyright

Consequences of High-dose Steroid Therapy for Acute Spinal Cord Injury

OBJECTIVE High-dose Solu-Medrol (Upjohn, Kalamazoo, Mich) therapy has become standard care in the management of acute spinal cord injury (ASCI). This study attempts to define the adverse effects that Solu-Medrol therapy has on these patients. DESIGN Retrospective review with historical control. MATERIALS AND METHODS From May 1990 to April 1994, all patients with ASCI admitted within 8 hours of injury received high-dose Solu-Medrol per the National Acute Spinal Injury Study (NASCIS-2) protocol. Their demographic and outcome parameters were compared with those of a group admitted from March 1986 to December 1993 with an associated ASCI who received no steroid therapy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Steroid therapy was associated with a 2.6-fold increase in the incidence of pneumonia and an increase in ventilated and intensive care days. However, it was associated with a decrease in duration of rehabilitation and had no significant impact on other outcome parameters, including mortality. CONCLUSIONS Although the NASCIS-2 protocol may promote early infectious complications, it has no adverse impact on long-term outcome in patients with ASCIs.

Blunt Traumatic Thoracic Aortic Injuries: Early or Delayed Repair—results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Prospective Study

BACKGROUND The traditional approach to stable blunt thoracic aortic injuries (TAI) is immediate repair, with delayed repair reserved for patients with major associated injuries. In recent years, there has been a trend toward delayed repair, even in low-risk patients. This study evaluates the current practices in the surgical community regarding the timing of aortic repair and its effects on outcomes. METHODS This was a prospective, observational multicenter study sponsored by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. The study included patients with blunt TAI scheduled for aortic repair by open or endovascular procedure. Patients in extremis and those managed without aortic repair were excluded. The data collection included demographics, initial clinical presentation, Injury Severity Scores, type and site of aortic injury, type of aortic repair (open or endovascular repair), and time from injury to aortic repair. The study patients were divided into an early repair (< or = 24 hours) and delayed repair groups (> 24 hours). The outcome variables included survival, ventilator days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, blood transfusions, and complications. The outcomes in the two groups were compared with multivariate analysis after adjusting for age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, major associated injuries, and type of aortic repair. A second multivariate analysis compared outcomes between early and delayed repair, in patients with and patients without major associated injuries. RESULTS There were 178 patients with TAI eligible for inclusion and analysis, 109 (61.2%) of which underwent early repair and 69 (38.8%) delayed repair. The two groups had similar epidemiologic, injury severity, and type of repair characteristics. The adjusted mortality was significantly higher in the early repair group (adjusted OR [95% CI] 7.78 [1.69-35.70], adjusted p value = 0.008). The adjusted complication rate was similar in the two groups. However, delayed repair was associated with significantly longer ICU and hospital lengths of stay. Analysis of the 108 patients without major associated injuries, adjusting for age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, and type of aortic repair, showed that in early repair there was a trend toward higher mortality rate (adjusted OR 9.08 [0.88-93.78], adjusted p value = 0.064) but a significantly lower complication rate (adjusted OR 0.4 [0.18-0.96], adjusted p value 0.040) and shorter ICU stay (adjusted p value = 0.021) than the delayed repair group. A similar analysis of the 68 patients with major associated injuries, showed a strong trend toward higher mortality in the early repair group (adjusted OR 9.39 [0.93-95.18], adjusted p value = 0.058). The complication rate was similar in both groups (adjusted p value = 0.239). CONCLUSIONS Delayed repair of stable blunt TAI is associated with improved survival, irrespective of the presence or not of major associated injuries. However, delayed repair is associated with a longer length of ICU stay and in the group of patients with no major associated injuries a significantly higher complication rate.

Antiplatelet therapy: An alternative to heparin for blunt carotid injury

BACKGROUND Blunt carotid injuries (BCIs) are uncommon. Most single-center studies are small and highlight the use of anticoagulation for treatment. In a retrospective review, we identified 22 patients who presented with BCI and assessed neurologic and survival outcomes on the basis of injury grade and treatment with anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy. METHODS Patient demographics were identified using the trauma registry at a single Level I trauma center. Chart reviews assessed neurologic function, modalities used for diagnosis, and treatment. Neurologic outcomes were graded good (minimal to no deficit), fair (moderate deficit needing some assistance), poor (requiring institutionalization), and dead. RESULTS Twenty-two adult trauma patients were diagnosed with BCI, for an incidence of 0.45% in the 8-year study period. All BCI patients underwent head computed tomography and four-vessel cerebral arteriography. Eight patients were not anticoagulated, five because of intracranial injuries, two who had surgical CCA repairs, and one with an aortic injury. Full anticoagulation with heparin was attempted in seven patients, with four major bleeding complications requiring cessation of heparin and blood transfusions. Seven patients received antiplatelet therapy. No difference in neurologic outcome was observed between those receiving anticoagulation and those receiving antiplatelet therapy. Bleeding complications from full anticoagulation were higher than with antiplatelet agents (p = 0.05). CONCLUSION Contrary to previous reports, we did not observe improved outcomes with full anticoagulation compared with antiplatelet therapy. Anticoagulation was associated with increased extracranial bleeding complications. The risks and possible benefits, as well as timing, of anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy for BCI should be carefully weighed by the major care providers of the patient with multiple injuries.

Introduction to propensity scores: A case study on the comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic vs open appendectomy.

OBJECTIVE To demonstrate the use of propensity scores to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of laparoscopic and open appendectomy. DESIGN Retrospective cohort study. SETTING Academic and private hospitals. PATIENTS All patients undergoing open or laparoscopic appendectomy (n = 21 475) in the Public Use File of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program were included in the study. We first evaluated the surgical approach (laparoscopic vs open) using multivariate logistic regression. We next generated propensity scores and compared outcomes for open and laparoscopic appendectomy in a 1:1 matched cohort. Covariates in the model for propensity scores included comorbidities, age, sex, race, and evidence of perforation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Patient morbidity and mortality, rate of return to operating room, and hospital length of stay. RESULTS Twenty-eight percent of patients underwent open appendectomy, and 72% had a laparoscopic approach; 33% (open) vs 14% (laparoscopic) had evidence of a ruptured appendix. In the propensity-matched cohort, there was no difference in mortality (0.3% vs 0.2%), reoperation (1.8% vs 1.5%), or incidence of major complications (5.9% vs 5.4%) between groups. Patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy experienced fewer wound infections (odds ratio [OR], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.3-0.5) and fewer episodes of sepsis (0.8; 0.6-1.0) but had a greater risk of intra-abdominal abscess (1.7; 1.3-2.2). An analysis using multivariate adjustment resulted in similar findings. CONCLUSIONS After accounting for patient severity, open and laparoscopic appendectomy had similar clinical outcomes. In this case study, propensity score methods and multivariate adjustment yielded nearly identical results.

The need for early angiographic embolization in blunt liver injuries.

BACKGROUND Although nonoperative management of blunt liver injury (BLI) has become standard practice, adjuncts to nonoperative therapy, such as angiographic embolization, have not been well characterized. METHODS Patients with BLI were retrospectively identified at our American College of Surgeons-verified Level I trauma center from January 1997 through February 2001. Patients were stratified into four groups: those who received angiographic embolization (AE) as an early intervention when BLI was initially diagnosed (EARLY-AE); those who underwent AE after liver-related operation or later in the hospital course (LATE-AE); those treated with operation only (OR-ONLY); and nonoperative patients who also did not undergo AE (NO-OR). RESULTS There were 126 patients with BLI, of whom 94 were NO-OR, 20 were OR-ONLY, 6 had LATE-AE, and 6 had EARLY-AE. The NO-OR group had significantly lower liver Abbreviated Injury Scale scores. Liver Abbreviated Injury Scale scores were not different between the EARLY-AE, LATE-AE, and OR-ONLY groups. Liver-related mortality was not lower for those treated with AE. There was a trend toward lower mortality for just the EARLY-AE group compared with the LATE-AE and OR-ONLY groups (0% vs. 50% and 35%). The number of units of packed red blood cells transfused and the number of liver-related operations were lower in the EARLY-AE compared with the LATE-AE group, but liver-related complications were not different between the EARLY-AE, LATE-AE, or OR-ONLY groups. AE was successful in arresting hemorrhage in 83% of the cases. CONCLUSION In this small series, we observed similar morbidity and mortality with AE compared with operative therapy. EARLY-AE did decrease blood use and the number of liver-related operations. AE can be performed on severely injured patients with comparable liver-related mortality and complications. Further study of the timing of and outcomes from AE is needed.

Intensive insulin therapy is associated with reduced infectious complications in burn patients

BACKGROUND Intensive insulin therapy to control blood glucose levels has reduced mortality in surgical, but not medical, intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Control of blood glucose levels has also been shown to reduce morbidity in surgical ICU patients. There is very little data for use of intensive insulin therapy in the burn patient population. We sought to evaluate our experience with intensive insulin therapy in burn-injured ICU patients with regard to mortality, morbidity, and use of hospital resources. STUDY DESIGN Burn patients admitted to our American College of Surgeons verified burn center ICU from 7/1/2004 to 6/30/2006 were studied. An intensive insulin therapy protocol was initiated for ICU patients admitted starting 7/1/2005 with a blood glucose target of 100-140 mg/dL. The 2 groups of patients studied were control (7/1/2004 to 6/30/2005) and intensive insulin therapy (7/1/2005 to 6/30/2006). All glucose values for the hospitalization were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS Overall, 152 ICU patients admitted with burn injury were available for study. No difference in mortality was evident between the control and intensive insulin therapy groups. After adjusting for patient risk, the intensive insulin therapy group was found to have a decreased rate of pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and urinary tract infection. In patients with a maximum glucose value of greater than 140 mg/dL, the risk for an infection was significantly increased (OR 11.3, 95% CI 4-32, P-value < .001). The presence of a maximum glucose value greater than 140 mg/dL was associated with a sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 62% for an infectious complication. CONCLUSION Intensive insulin therapy for burn-injured patients admitted to the ICU was associated with a reduced incidence of pneumonia, ventilator-associated pneumonia, and urinary tract infection. Intensive insulin therapy did not result in a change in mortality or length of stay when adjusting for confounding variables. Measurement of a blood glucose level greater than 140 mg/dL should heighten the clinical suspicion for the presence of an infection in patients with burn injury.

Real money: Complications and hospital costs in trauma patients

BACKGROUND Major postoperative complications are associated with a substantial increase in hospital costs. Trauma patients are known to have a higher rate of complications than the general surgery population. We used the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) methodology to evaluate hospital costs, duration of stay, and payment associated with complications in trauma patients. METHODS Using NSQIP principles, patient data were collected for 512 adult patients admitted to the trauma service for > 24 hours at a Level 1 trauma center (2004-2005). Patients were placed in 1 of 3 groups: no complications (none), >or=1 minor complication (minor, eg, urinary tract infection), or >or=1 major complication (major, eg, pneumonia). Total hospital charges, costs, payment, and duration of stay associated with each complication group were determined from a cost-accounting database. Multiple regression was used to determine the costs of each type of complication after adjusting for differences in age, sex, new injury severity score, Glasgow coma scale score, maximum head abbreviated injury scale, and first emergency department systolic blood pressure. RESULTS A total of 330 (64%) patients had no complications, 53 (10%) had >or= 1 minor complication, and 129 (25%) had >or= 1 major complication. Median hospital charges increased from