All posts by TheTraumaPro

EAST 2017 #14: Long Term Consequences of Trauma: Why Aren’t We Looking?

I’m adding one more post to my EAST 2017 collection. This one struck me because it dovetails with another one I analyzed last week. After hearing both, something just clicked. The first was “When is mild TBI not so mild”, and opened my eyes to the fact that more TBI patients had ongoing problems than I imagined.

Now I just heard a presentation that looked at long term functional outcomes in patients with ISS > 9 at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. They identified patients in their trauma registry from 6 and 12 months prior to the study, and called these patients to administer several standard evaluation tools. Of 394 eligible patients, 27% could not be contacted, and 30% declined to participate, leaving 171 subjects. Half were 6 months out from their discharge, and half were a year  out.

The findings were very interesting. Here are the factoids:

  • 23% had a positive PTSD screen at 6 months, but this decreased to 16% at one year
  • A quarter of patients were still living with assistance that they did not need preinjury in both time periods
  • 20% of patients experienced a change in insurance
  • Half of the patients stopped working due to their injury, and this did not improve at one year
  • One in six were readmitted at some point for their injuries
  • The majority used some type of rehabilitation service (inpatient or outpatient) during their recovery

Bottom line: In my mind, this is a very big deal. All trauma centers collect a huge amount of data to monitor how things work while the patient is in the hospital. However, once discharged, they are on their own. We have no idea how they are doing, we have no mechanisms for finding out, and we have no systems in place to help if there are problems.

It is certainly simple enough to schedule a few phone calls at time intervals after discharge. We have tools and screening questions that we can ask. We can even include this information in the trauma registry and trend it. But then what?

This problem reaches beyond the trauma centers. Sure, we can make referrals for PTSD and rehab services. But what about the patient’s job, or their insurance? What if they don’t have insurance coverage or funds for needed services?

I believe that trauma centers should develop these processes and start collecting this information now. But we will also have to work with community and social service resources in order to marshal the services that our patients require. 

Reference: Routine inclusion of long-term functional and patient reported outcomes into trauma registries: can this be done? Paper #34, EAST 2017.

EAST 2017 #13: An Extra Trauma Activation Tier For Geriatric Trauma

Our elderly population is growing rapidly, and the average age of the patients on the trauma service is escalating. These patients offer a number of challenges throughout their presentation to the hospital and the rest of their stay. Some trauma centers are now organizing special teams or response types to deal with the unique needs of this population. A few have adopted a separate response type when injured elderly patients present to the ED.

The group at Reading Hospital  implemented a separate trauma activation tier, “Tier 3”, driven by emergency physicians, to manage these patients. Tier 3 was designed to identify patients > 65 years of age with the potential for occult blunt injury to the head and torso. The normal activation criteria at this center would not have necessarily identified these patients. This study retrospectively looked at demographics and outcomes for two separate three year periods, one before and one after implementation of Tier 3.

Here are the factoids:

  • Geriatric volume increased significantly from 1715 to 3688 patients (!!), and more received expedited workup as either a trauma activation or Tier 3
  • There were statistically significant decreases in time to CT (102 vs 128 minutes) and ED length of stay (361 vs 432 minutes) (see my comments)
  • Mortality decreased from 8% to 5% overall, and from 19% to 11% in patients with head AIS > 3, both of which were significant
  • Regression analysis showed that implementation of the Tier 3 response was an independent predictor of improved survival

Bottom line: This poster shows results that suggest having a specific response for select elderly patients who don’t meet trauma activation criteria can be beneficial. However, the devil is in the details. Each center must develop criteria for the Tier 3 response that mesh with their own activation criteria. And the details of that response need to be clinically significantly better than the usual consult response.

Questions and comments for the authors/presenters:

  1. Be careful not to confuse statistical significance with clinical significance. Decreasing mean time to CT from 2:08 to 1:42 is not that big of a deal. The same applies to 7 hours in the ED vs 6.
  2. Please share the Tier 3 criteria and details of the ED response.
  3. Have you modified your Tier 3 criteria and/or response since inception, and if so, how and why?

Click here to go the the EAST 2017 page to see comments on other abstracts.

Related posts:

Reference: “Tier 3”: Long term experience with a novel addition to a two-tiered triage system to expedite care of geriatric trauma patients.. Poster #34, EAST 2017.

EAST 2017 #12: Revaccination Compliance After Splenectomy

The incidence of overwhelming post-splenectomy sepsis, and the need and effectiveness for vaccination after splenectomy is still subject to debate. However, the administration of three vaccines to protect against encapsulated bacteria is a standard of care. For decades, this was a one time thing and the vaccines were usually given before the spelenctomized trauma patient was discharged from the hospital.

Then several years ago, the CDC updated their recommendations to include a booster dose of 23-valent penumococcal vaccine. Trauma professionals have inconsistently advised their patients about this dose, and patients have not reliably sought their booster.

Researchers at Christiana Care in Delaware looked at this potential problem by identifying all of their trauma splenectomy patients over a 10 year period. They were interviewed by phone to determine their understanding of the asplenic state and the need for booster vaccination.

Here are the factoids:

  • During the 10 year period, 267 trauma splenectomies were performed
  • 196 survived, but only 52 agreed to participate (? – see below)
  • Although all patients received vaccines before discharge (!), only 23% were aware that they had
  • Only about half of patients were aware that they may be at risk for infectious complications
  • Only 19% understood they would require a booster dose, and 22% had actually received one (?? – see below)

Bottom line: Although we still aren’t sure how important these vaccines are, vaccination is the standard of care. This study, although a little confusing, shows that we are falling down in educating our patients about the impact of their splenectomy (surgical or via embolization). And it’s difficult for anyone to remember to get a booster shot. Are you up to date on your tetanus vaccination?

This abstract shows us that we need to counsel these patients prior to discharge regarding their at-risk condition. We also need to make sure they (and their primary care provider) are aware that they need to get a pneumococcal booster five years down the road.

News flash! Take a look at page 3 of the CDC recommendations (download here) to see the official recommendations regarding pneumococcal vaccination. It is recommended that PCV-13 vaccine (Prevnar 13) be given first, then the 23-valent vaccine (Pneumovax) 8 weeks later! This complicates things a bit, since both pneumococcal vaccines cannot be given while the patient is still in the hospital. This will reduce the likelihood that patients will get their second pneumococcal vaccine.

Questions and comments for the authors/presenters:

  1. The number of patients is off by one. There were 267 splenectomy patients, 49 died in the hospital and 23 after discharge. 267-49-23=195, not 196.
  2. Only 52 of this 195 agreed to participate. You were able to find all 195? It seems that some of these 143 patients just could not be located.
  3. Please clarify the numbers in my last bullet point. Of the 52 patients, only 9 were aware of the revaccination requirement, and only 1 got it?
  4. This is important work. What have you done to improve these numbers at your hospital?

Click here to go the the EAST 2017 page to see comments on other abstracts.

Related posts:

Reference: Revaccination compliance after trauma splenectomy: a call for improvement. Poster #31, EAST 2017.

EAST 2017 #11: Use of Incompatible (Type A) Plasma For Massive Transfusion

Type AB plasma is considered “universal donor” plasma, as it contains no antibodies to red cells with either A or B antigens on their surface. Unfortunately, only about 4% of the US population have this blood type and can provide the product. Due to this shortage, some trauma centers have decided to use Type A plasma initially for massive transfusion, and switch to type specific plasma once patient blood has been typed and screened.

This works, since only about 13% of the population have red cells with B antigens on the surface. But are there any adverse effects in those patients who receive potentially incompatible plasma? The EAST Multicenter Study group performed a retrospective study using trauma registry and blood bank data from 5 trauma centers. They looked at adult patients who received plasma as part of the massive transfusion protocol (MTP) over a 4+ year period. Incompatible type A plasma transfusion was defined to occur if a patient had either Type B or AB blood.

Here are the factoids:

  • There were a total of 1212 patients in the study; 93% were compatible and 7% were incompatible type A initial transfusions
  • The usual trauma demographics were seen (young, male) and the average ISS was 25 (they triggered an MTP, remember?)
  • By chance, the incompatible group had a slightly higher ISS (29) and penetrating injury rate (45% vs 33%)
  • The incompatible group received significantly more plasma during the first 4 hours and during the first day
  • There was no difference in mortality sepsis, ARDS, thromboembolic events, or renal failure
  • Regression analysis showed that incompatible plasma was not a predictor of mortality or morbidity
  • There was one hemolytic reaction and one occurrence of TRALI, both in the compatible group

Bottom line: This is the largest study around on the topic, and it does not show any significant problems (at least the ones that were studied) with giving incompatible plasma in acute trauma. How can this be, you ask? Remember, only the first one or two units (the first MTP pack) is potentially incompatible. Hopefully, by the time the second pack is delivered, the blood has been typed. And these patients are potentially receiving multiple units of typed plasma after the initial transfusion which dilutes the incompatible, and multiple transfusions overall which may blunt their immune response. 

This is an important paper that all centers should consider as they update their massive transfusion protocols!

Questions and comments for the authors/presenters:

  1. The abstract states that 5 centers participated, but the tables only list 4. Please explain this.
  2. It is not stated explicitly whether all centers used type A plasma initially. Is this the case?
  3. This is important work! Have any other centers converted to initial use of type A plasma?

Click here to go the the EAST 2017 page to see comments on other abstracts.

Related posts:

Reference: Use of incompatible type A plasma transfusion in patients requiring massive transfusion protocol: outcomes of an EAST multicenter study. Paper #16, EAST 2017.

EAST 2017 #10: A Simple Way To Predict Complications After Rib Fracture?

Rib fractures are a common injury, and a very common cause of morbidity. Every time I admit an elderly patient with rib fractures, I debate whether they should go to the ICU or a ward bed. Could there be a more objective way of determining the likelihood of complications, aggressiveness of treatment, and admission unit?

A group at West Virginia University implemented a rib fracture pathway in 2009, and have been collecting data on patients ever since. It was based on the measurement of forced vital capacity (FVC) on admission. This is the total amount of air that can be exhaled during a forced breath.

The authors subdivided their patients into two groups based on the total volume exhaled (<1.5L, and >1.5L). They retrospectively reviewed 6 years of data, looking at specific injuries, complications, and unexpected transfer to ICU. They hypothesized that patients in the highest FVC group would have fewer complications.

Here are the factoids:

  • There was a nearly even split in groups, with 678 patients who had FVC > 1.5L, and 682 with FVC < 1.5
  • There were significantly fewer complications and pneumonia, as well as fewer readmissions in the FVC > 1.5 group
  • Higher FVC was not associated with fewer unexpected transfers to ICU
  • Length of stay was half as long (4d vs 8d) in the high FVC group, but no p value was provided
  • The authors conclude that patients with FVC much greater than 1.5 are at lower risk for complications regardless of the number of fractures (???!)
  • They even suggest that patients with FVC > 1.5 could be discharged from the ED rather than be admitted (!)

Bottom line: Well, it started out good! The abstract showed that the high FVC patients had fewer complications and readmissions. And the length of stay was shorter, although significance was not noted. But the jump to correlating complication risk with number of fractures was not addressed in the abstract. And I can’t quite grasp the leap to suggesting possible discharge from the ED. 

FVC may be an inexpensive and simple test to administer in new rib fracture patients. But it’s ability to predict who goes to ICU and who goes home from the ED was not really identified in the study. 

Questions and comments for the authors/presenters:

  1. A minor point, but the upper limit was defined as > 1.5L in some parts of the abstract, and > 1.5L in  others. Small point, but keep it clean. Make sure all the greater than, less than, and equals signs are consistent.
  2. Was the shorter length of stay significantly different between the groups?
  3. Did you do any stratification by age?
  4. How did you make the conclusion that patients could be sent home from the ED?
  5. And did you do any correlations with your FVC data and the number of fractures? It’s not in the abstract.

Click here to go the the EAST 2017 page to see comments on other abstracts.

Related post:

Reference: Is an FVC of 1.5 adequate for predicting respiratory sufficiency in rib fractures? Paper #4, EAST 2017.