Alcohol interventions for trauma patients treated in emergency departments: can we afford not to intervene?

Urine toxicology screening in Austrian trauma patients: a prospective study

INTRODUCTION

The question as to whether the patient consumed drugs prior to the trauma and which drugs were consumed, is of prime importance for the anesthesia required during surgery. However, many patients are unwilling or unable (including those with multiple trauma or impaired consciousness, or unconscious patients) to answer this question. The purpose of our prospective multicenter study was to collect data about drug consumption in Austria to determine whether drugs are identifiable in the urine of recently injured individuals and to establish the types of drugs consumed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective study included severely and moderately injured patients admitted to the Lorenz Boehler Trauma Hospital (Vienna, Austria), the Trauma Hospital Linz (Linz, Austria) and the Department of Trauma Surgery of the General Hospital Horn (Horn, Austria) during an 18-month period (October 2003-March 2005). All patients were suffering from injuries urgently requiring surgery. Urine samples were gained from all patients immediately after admission. Urinary samples were tested by Immuno-Assay (Triage 8 Immuno-Assay, Biosite, San Diego, USA). Urine samples were screened simultaneously for opiates, methadone, cocaine, barbiturates, amphetamines, cannabinoids, benzodiazepines and tricyclic antidepressants.

RESULTS

Our prospective study included a total of 664 patients (320 from Vienna, 193 from the city of Linz, and 151 from Horn). Six hundred and forty-two patients were moderately injured (ISS < 16), suffering mostly from injuries to the extremities (504 patients) and 22 patients were severely injured (ISS > 16). Of the 664 patients, 178 (26.8%) tested positive for one or more drugs. The drugs most commonly detected were benzodiazepines (111 patients, 16.7%), cannabinoides (39 patients, 6%), tricyclic antidepressants (28, 4.2%) and opiates (26, 3.9%).

CONCLUSION

Drug use is widespread in patients presenting to urban trauma centers in Austria. Physicians should maintain a high index of suspicion that their patients may be intoxicated and should perform drug testing routinely.

Single question about drunkenness to detect college students at risk for injury

OBJECTIVES

To examine the frequency of injuries reported by college students who replied affirmatively to the question, "In a typical week, how many days do you get drunk?"

METHODS

In Fall 2003, a Web-based survey was administered to a stratified random sample of 3,909 college students from ten North Carolina (NC) universities. Students answered questions regarding alcohol use and its consequences. Data were analyzed using multiple logistic regression, controlling for within-school clustering of drinking behaviors and adjusting for other significant covariates. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for significant predictors (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

Two thousand four hundred eighty-eight students reported that they are current drinkers; 1,353 (54.4%) reported getting drunk at least once in a typical week. Compared with students who did not report getting drunk at least once a week, these students had higher odds of being hurt or injured at least once as a result of their own drinking (AOR = 4.97; 95% CI = 3.47 to 7.09), experiencing a fall from a height that required medical treatment (AOR = 2.16; 95% CI = 1.36 to 3.43), and being taken advantage of sexually as a result of another's drinking (AOR = 2.59; 95% CI = 1.72 to 3.89). Students who reported getting drunk at least one day in a typical week also were more likely to cause an injury requiring medical treatment to someone else. They had higher odds of causing injury in an automobile crash (AOR = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.01 to 3.40), of causing a burn that required medical treatment (AOR = 2.85; 95% CI = 1.51 to 5.39), and of causing a fall from a height that required medical treatment (AOR = 2.02; 95% CI = 1.01 to 4.04). Getting drunk was a better indicator of "self-experienced injury" and of "injury caused to someone else" than was binge drinking, for all outcomes (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The single question, "In a typical week, how many days do you get drunk?" identifies college students who are at higher than normal risk of injury as a result of their own drinking and the drinking of others. Future research should assess this question's effectiveness as a screening tool in campus health centers and in emergency departments.

Characterization of the drug-positive adolescent trauma population: should we, do we, and does it make a difference if we test?

PURPOSE

Substance abuse (SA) is a significant cofactor for adolescent injury. Characterization of this population will help define a list of variables that are critical for designing interventions. The purpose of this study is to determine the frequency of SA testing and describe the injury characteristics of the adolescent trauma SA population.

METHODS

A urine drug screening (alcohol, cannabis, and opiates) protocol for all injured adolescents (14-17 years old) was used. Four years of data were analyzed. Three groups were defined: not tested (NT), negative (NEG), and positive (POS). Transfers from an outside hospital and those who received opiate pain medication before drug screening were excluded. A patient may have had more than one positive test. Tests were analyzed to compare sex, injury severity score (ISS), survival, mechanism, and length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Four hundred forty-three patients met the criteria (308 males and 135 females). Mean ISS was 13.5 +/- 0.5 SEM with a 2.9% mortality rate. One hundred ninety-three of 443 (44%) were screened (m = 120, f = 73) with 39% testing positive in each group. Twenty-nine percent of positive tests were opiates, 11.2% alcohol, and 20% cannabis. No sex differences for alcohol, cannabis, or opiate use were noted. There were no differences between the NT and the NEG/POS groups with respect to sex, LOS, or mechanism of injury. Fourteen-year olds were less likely to be drug screened. Mean ISS score was lower in the NT group (11.4 +/- 0.6 vs 15.7 +/- 1.0, P< .005). For the NEG and POS group analysis, a positive drug screen was not predicted by age, sex, ISS score, outcome, or LOS. Bicycle crashes were predictive of a positive drug screen (P < .005). Survival rates were not different between any of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Forty percent of the patients screened positive, thus, supporting screening in adolescent trauma patients. Selective criteria based on injury characteristics are not justified.