scholarly journals Retrospective study on rib fractures: smoking and alcohol matter for mortality and complications

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. e000732
Author(s):  
AlleaBelle Gongola ◽  
Jace C Bradshaw ◽  
Jing Jin ◽  
Hanna K Jensen ◽  
Avi Bhavaraju ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Directed Acyclic Graphs ◽  
Rib Fractures ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Lower Likelihood ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

BackgroundRib fractures and substance use are both common in trauma patients, but there is little data on how smoking and alcohol use may be associated with outcomes in these patients. We assessed the association between smoking or alcohol use disorder (AUD) and outcomes in patients with rib fractures.MethodsWe used institutional databases to conduct a retrospective review of patients with rib fractures at the only American College of Surgeons-verified adult level 1 trauma center in a rural state between 2015 and 2019. The key exposure variables were smoking and AUD. The key outcome variables were mortality and pulmonary complications (pneumonia, adult respiratory distress syndrome, and pneumothorax). We used multivariable regression for analysis and directed acyclic graphs to identify variables for adjustment.ResultsWe identified 1880 eligible patients with rib fractures, including 693 (37%) who were smokers and 204 (11%) who had AUD. Compared with non-smokers, smokers were younger, more often male, and had lower mortality rates. Regression showed that smokers had a lower likelihood of mortality (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.87; p=014). Likelihood of pneumonia, ARDS, and pneumothorax was not different between smokers and non-smokers. Compared with patients without AUD, patients with AUD were older, more often male, and had higher likelihood of pneumonia and lower likelihood of pneumothorax. Regression showed that patients with AUD had higher likelihood of pneumonia (OR 1.82; 95% CI 1.24 to 2.68; p=0.002) and lower likelihood of pneumothorax (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75; p=0.002).DiscussionIn trauma patients with rib fractures treated at a level 1 trauma center over 5 years, smoking was associated with decreased risk of mortality. These findings have implications for risk stratification and clinical decision-making for patients with rib fractures.Level of evidenceIII

scholarly journals Implementing psychosocial programming at a level 1 trauma center: results from a 5-year period

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e000363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha M Simske ◽  
Trenton Rivera ◽  
Mary A Breslin ◽  
Sarah B Hendrickson ◽  
Megen Simpson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Support Groups ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Psychosocial Support ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress ◽  
Educational Materials ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Victims Of Crime ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

BackgroundThe primary goal of the present study is to describe the psychosocial support services provided at our institution and the evolution of such programming through time. This study will also report the demographics and injury patterns of patients using available resources.MethodsTrauma Recovery Services (TRS) is a social and psychological support program that provides services and resources to patients and families admitted to our hospital. It includes a number of different services such as emotional coaching from licensed counselors, educational materials, peer mentorship from trauma survivors, monthly support groups, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) screening and programming for victims of crime. Patients using services were prospectively recorded by hired staff, volunteers and students who engaged in distributing programming. Demographics and injury characteristics were retrospectively gathered from patient’s medical records.ResultsFrom May of 2013 through December 2018, a total of 4977 discrete patients used TRS at an urban level 1 trauma center. During the study period, 31.4% of the 15 640 admitted adult trauma patients were exposed to TRS and this increased from 7.2% in 2013 to 60.1% in 2018. During the period of 5.5 years, 3317 patients had ‘direct contact’ (coaching and/or educational materials) and 1827 patients had at least one peer visit. The average number of peer visits was 2.7 per patient (range: 2–15). Of the 114 patients who attended support groups over 4 years, 55 (48%) attended more than one session, with an average of 3.9 visits (range: 2–10) per patient. After the establishment of PTSD screening and Victims of Crime Advocacy and Recovery Program (VOCARP) services in 2017, a total of 482 patients were screened for PTSD and 974 patients used VOCARP resources during the period of 2 years, with substantial growth from 2017 to 2018.ConclusionsHospital-provided resources aimed at educating patients, expanding support networks and bolstering resiliency were popular at our institution, with nearly 5000 discrete patients accessing services during a period of 5.5 years. Moving forward, greater investigation of program usage, development, and efficacy is necessary.Level of evidenceLevel II therapeutic.

scholarly journals Identifying trauma patients with benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlie A. Sewalt ◽  
Benjamin Y. Gravesteijn ◽  
Daan Nieboer ◽  
Ewout W. Steyerberg ◽  
Dennis Den Hartog ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Logistic Regression ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Trauma Centers ◽  
Absolute Benefit ◽  
Predicted Probability ◽  
Prehospital Triage ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center ◽  
Level 2

Abstract Background Prehospital triage protocols typically try to select patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 for direct transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. However, ISS does not necessarily discriminate between patients who benefit from immediate care at Level-1 trauma centers. The aim of this study was to assess which patients benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. Methods We used the American National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), a retrospective observational cohort. All adult patients (ISS > 3) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Patients who were self-presenting or had isolated limb injury were excluded. We used logistic regression to assess the association of direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers with in-hospital mortality adjusted for clinically relevant confounders. We used this model to define benefit as predicted probability of mortality associated with transportation to a non-Level-1 trauma center minus predicted probability associated with transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. We used a threshold of 1% as absolute benefit. Potential interaction terms with transportation to Level-1 trauma centers were included in a penalized logistic regression model to study which patients benefit. Results We included 388,845 trauma patients from 232 Level-1 centers and 429 Level-2/3 centers. A small beneficial effect was found for direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers (adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.92–0.99) which disappeared when comparing Level-1 and 2 versus Level-3 trauma centers. In the risk approach, predicted benefit ranged between 0 and 1%. When allowing for interactions, 7% of the patients (n = 27,753) had more than 1% absolute benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. These patients had higher AIS Head and Thorax scores, lower GCS and lower SBP. A quarter of the patients with ISS > 15 were predicted to benefit from transportation to Level-1 centers (n = 26,522, 22%). Conclusions Benefit of transportation to a Level-1 trauma centers is quite heterogeneous across patients and the difference between Level-1 and Level-2 trauma centers is small. In particular, patients with head injury and signs of shock may benefit from care in a Level-1 trauma center. Future prehospital triage models should incorporate more complete risk profiles.

scholarly journals Does emergency medicine length of stay predict trauma outcomes at a Level 1 Trauma Center?

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Powers Kinney ◽  
Kamal Gursahani ◽  
Eric Armbrecht ◽  
Preeti Dalawari
Keyword(s):  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Hospital Length ◽  
Hospital Length Of Stay ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Hospital Capacity ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Objective: Previous studies looking at emergency department (ED) crowding and delays of care on outcome measures for certain medical and surgical patients excluded trauma patients. The objectives of this study were to assess the relationship of trauma patients’ ED length of stay (EDLOS) on hospital length of stay (HLOS) and on mortality; and to examine the association of ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Methods: This was a retrospective database review of Level 1 and 2 trauma patients at a single site Level 1 Trauma Center in the Midwest over a one year period. Out of a sample of 1,492, there were 1,207 patients in the analysis after exclusions. The main outcome was the difference in hospital mortality by EDLOS group (short was less than 4 hours vs. long, greater than 4 hours). HLOS was compared by EDLOS group, stratified by Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) category (< 0.5, 0.51-0.89, > 0.9) to describe the association between ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Results: There was no significant difference in mortality by EDLOS (4.8% short and 4% long, p = .5). There was no significant difference in HLOS between EDLOS, when adjusted for TRISS. ED census did not affect EDLOS (p = .59), however; EDLOS was longer when the percentage of staffed hospital beds available was lower (p < .001).Conclusions: While hospital overcrowding did increase EDLOS, there was no association between EDLOS and mortality or HLOS in leveled trauma patients at this institution.

Delays in Transfer of Elderly Less-injured Trauma Patients Can Have Deadly Consequences

2014 ◽  
Vol 80 (11) ◽  
pp. 1132-1135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter E. Fischer ◽  
Paul D. Colavita ◽  
Gregory P. Fleming ◽  
Toan T. Huynh ◽  
A. Britton Christmas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Severely Injured ◽  
Severely Injured Patients ◽  
Local Trauma ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Poor Outcomes ◽  
Injured Patients ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Transfer of severely injured patients to regional trauma centers is often expedited; however, transfer of less-injured, older patients may not evoke the same urgency. We examined referring hospitals’ length of stay (LOS) and compared the subsequent outcomes in less-injured transfer patients (TP) with patients presenting directly (DP) to the trauma center. We reviewed the medical records of less-injured (Injury Severity Score [ISS] 9 or less), older (age older than 60 years) patients transferred to a regional Level 1 trauma center to determine the referring facility LOS, demographics, and injury information. Outcomes of the TP were then compared with similarly injured DP using local trauma registry data. In 2011, there were 1657 transfers; the referring facility LOS averaged greater than 3 hours. In the less-injured patients (ISS 9 or less), the average referring facility LOS was 3 hours 20 minutes compared with 2 hours 24 minutes in more severely injured patients (ISS 25 or greater, P < 0.05). The mortality was significantly lower in the DP patients (5.8% TP vs 2.6% DP, P = 0.035). Delays in transfer of less-injured, older trauma patients can result in poor outcomes including increased mortality. Geographic challenges do not allow for every patient to be transported directly to a trauma center. As a result, we propose further outreach efforts to identify potential causes for delay and to promote compliance with regional referral guidelines.

Implementing and Evaluating SBIRT for Alcohol Use at a Level 1 Trauma Center: A Behavioral Medicine Approach

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 376-384
Author(s):  
Alexa M. Hays ◽  
Kelly L. Gilrain ◽  
Victoria A. Grunberg ◽  
Anastasia Bullock ◽  
Philip Fizur ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Behavioral Medicine ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

The Prevalence of Blood-borne Pathogens in Maxillofacial Trauma Patients at a Level 1 Trauma Center

2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Selim G. Gebran ◽  
Philip J. Wasicek ◽  
Yinglun Wu ◽  
Joseph Lopez ◽  
Ledibabari M. Ngaage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Maxillofacial Trauma ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Abstract No. 57: 5-Year Experience of Retrievable IVC Filter Use in Trauma Patients at a Level 1 Trauma Center

2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. S24
Author(s):  
S. Al-Humayyd ◽  
C. Dey ◽  
B. Kalmovitch ◽  
Z. Jiwan ◽  
T. Razek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Ivc Filter ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

scholarly journals Management of high-grade renal traumas with collecting system injuries

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Locke ◽  
Sarah Neu ◽  
Roshan Navaratnam ◽  
Andrea Phillips ◽  
Avery B. Nathens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Trauma Center ◽  
American Association ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Asymptomatic Patients ◽  
Urinary Extravasation ◽  
Prospective Trials ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center ◽  
Collecting System

Introduction: Approximately 50% of all high-grade renal traumas (HGRT, American Association for the Surgery of Trauma [AAST] grade 4/5) have associated collecting system injuries. Although most of these collecting system injuries will heal spontaneously, approximately 20–30% of these injuries are managed with ureteric stents. The objective of the study was to review the management of HGRT with collecting system injuries in a level 1 trauma center. Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of trauma patients with HGRT and collecting system injuries from 1998–2019. Results: We identified 147 patients with HGRT. Of the 105 patients who had trauma computed tomography (CT) imaging within 24 hours, 46 were found to have collecting system injuries. Seven of these patients underwent intervention based on initial CT findings; the remaining 39 patients with urinary extravasation were conservatively managed. Of the 37 patients who underwent reimaging, 22 (59%) demonstrated a stable or resolving collection and 15 (41%) demonstrated continued urinary extravasation. Resolution of extravasation on subsequent imaging was observed in 10 of those patients, while five patients (14%) required intervention (four stents, one percutaneous drain) for symptoms/signs of urinary extravasation. Conclusions: In this study, most patients with HGRT and collecting system injuries did not require intervention unless the patient became symptomatic. The majority of collecting system injuries resolved with no intervention. This study underscores the need for future prospective trials to investigate the necessity of intervening in HGRT collecting system injuries and, secondarily, the need for routine reimaging in these asymptomatic patients.

scholarly journals Utility Of Angioembolization In Patients with Abdominal and Pelvic Traumatic Bleeding: Descriptive Observational Analysis From A Level 1 Trauma Center

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hassan Al-Thani ◽  
Husham Abdelrahman ◽  
Ali Barah ◽  
Mohammad Asim ◽  
Ayman El-Menyar
Keyword(s):  
Blood Transfusion ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Trauma Center ◽  
Clinical Success Rate ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Solid Organ ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Traumatic Bleeding ◽  
Level 1 ◽  
Level 1 Trauma Center

Abstract Background: Massive bleeding is a major preventable cause of early death in trauma. It often requires surgical or endovascular intervention. We aimed to describe the utilization of angioembolization in patients with abdominal and pelvic traumatic bleeding at a level 1 trauma center.Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis for all trauma patients who underwent angioembolization post-traumatic bleeding between January 2012 and April 2018. Patients’s data and details of injuries, angiography procedures and outcomes were extracted from the Qatar national trauma registry.Results: A total of 175 trauma patients underwent angioembolization during the study period (103 for solid organ injury , 51 for pelvic injury and 21 for other injuries). The majority were young males. The main cause of injury was blunt trauma in 95.4% of patients. The most common indication of angioembolization was evident active bleeding on the initial CT scan (contrast pool or blushes). Blood transfusion was needed in two-third of patients. The hepatic injury cases had higher ISS, higher shock Index and more blood transfusion Absorbable particles (Gelfoam) was the most commonly used embolic material. The overall technical and clinical success rate was 93.7% and 95% respectively with low rebleeding and complication rates. The hospital and ICU length of stay were13 and 6 days respectively. The median injury to intervention time was 320 min while hospital arrival to intervention time was 274 min. The median follow-up time was 215 days. The overall cohort mortality was 15%. Conclusion: Angioembolization is an effective intervention to stop bleeding and support nonoperative management for both solid organ injuries and pelvic trauma. It has a high success rate with a careful selection and proper implementation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document