Trauma and nontrauma damage-control laparotomy: The difference is delirium (data from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma SLEEP-TIME multicenter trial)

Damage Control Surgery in the Era of Globalization of Health Care - Military and International Outcomes: A SystematicReview

INTRODUCTION

Damage Control Surgery (DCS) is a surgical technique used to manage critically ill and injured patients. This study examines the most recent 10-y outcomes related to DCS, with the secondary goal of scrutinizing the outcomes after DCS across surgical theaters.

METHODS

Studies published between 2012 and 2021 that described adult patients undergoing Abdominal DCS after traumatic injury were included. Outcomes were reported as medians-of-means and interquartile range.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies met inclusion criteria (9932 patients), all 52 were included in the Military versus Civilian comparison which includes 46 Civilian (9244 patients) and 6 Military (688 patients) studies. Forty-three studies were included in the United States (US) and non-US comparison, with 10 non-US (2092 patients), and 33 US (6572 patients) studies. Overall, study quality was low, the majority having a high or unclear risk of bias. Across all studies, the median 24-h mortality was 14% (5.1-21.2) and 30-d mortality was 17.9% (9.4-28.3). Between subgroups, the Military cohort had a 30-d mortality 9-fold lower than the Civilian cohort (2.1% versus 18.9%), and the non-US cohort had more than 3 times the 24-h mortality (23.8% versus 7.5%) and double the 30-d mortality (37.2% versus 14.6%) of the US cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Striking disparities are seen within current literature as it relates to outcomes after DCS between Military and Civilian and US and non-US populations. Trauma surgeons both within the US and internationally may benefit from looking to their Military counterparts for guidance to better care patients requiring DCS.

Prolonged hourly neurological examinations are associated with increased delirium and no discernible benefit in mild/moderate geriatric traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Serial neurological examinations (NEs) are routinely recommended in the intensive care unit (ICU) within the first 24 hours following a traumatic brain injury (TBI). There are currently no widely accepted guidelines for the frequency of NEs. Disruptions to the sleep-wake cycles increase the delirium rate. We aimed to evaluate whether there is a correlation between prolonged hourly (Q1)-NE and development of delirium and to determine if this practice reduces the likelihood of missing the detection of a process requiring emergent intervention.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with mild/moderate TBI, admitted to the ICU with serial NEs, was performed. Cohorts were stratified by the duration of exposure to Q1-NE, into prolonged (≥24 hours) and nonprolonged (<24 hours). Our primary outcomes of interest were delirium, evaluated using the Confusion Assessment Method; radiological progression from baseline images; neurological deterioration (focal neurological deficit, abnormal pupillary examination, or Glasgow Coma Scale score decrease >2); and neurosurgical procedures.

RESULTS

A total of 522 patients were included. No significant differences were found in demographics. Patients in the prolonged Q1-NE group (26.1%) had higher Injury Severity Score with similar head Abbreviated Injury Score, significantly higher delirium rate (59% vs. 35%, p < 0.001), and a longer hospital/ICU length of stay when compared with the nonprolonged Q1-NE group. No neurosurgical interventions were found to be performed emergently as a result of findings on NEs. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that prolonged Q1-NE was the only independent risk factor associated with a 2.5-fold increase in delirium rate. The number needed to harm for prolonged Q1-NE was 4.

CONCLUSION

Geriatric patients with mild/moderate TBI exposed to Q1-NE for periods longer than 24 hours had nearly a threefold increase in ICU delirium rate. One of five patients exposed to prolonged Q1-NE is harmed by the development of delirium. No patients were found to directly benefit as a result of more frequent NEs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level IV.

The open abdomen in mesenteric ischemia: A tool for patients undergoing revascularization

BACKGROUND

We examined outcomes in Acute Mesenteric Ischemia (AMI) with the hypothesis that Open Abdomen (OA) is associated with decreased mortality.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study reviewing NSQIP emergency laparotomy patients, 2016-2020, with a postoperative diagnosis of mesenteric ischemia. OA was defined using flags for patients without fascial closure. Logistic regression was used with outcomes of 30-day mortality and several secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Out of 5514 cases, 4624 (83.9%) underwent resection and 387 (7.0%) underwent revascularization. The OA rate was 32.6%. 10.8% of patients who were closed required reoperation. After adjustment for demographics, transfer status, comorbidities, preoperative variables including creatinine, white blood cell count, and anemia, as well as operative time, OA was associated with OR 1.58 for mortality (95% CI [1.38, 1.81], p < 0.001). Among revascularizations, there was no such association (p = 0.528). OA was associated with ventilator support >48 h (OR 4.04, 95% CI [3.55, 4.62], and p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

OA in AMI was associated with increased mortality and prolonged ventilation. This is not so in revascularization patients, and 1 in 10 patients who underwent primary closure required reoperation. OA should be considered in specific cases of AMI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort, Level III.

Damage Control Surgery and Transfer in Emergency General Surgery

Selective non traumatic emergency surgery patients are targets for damage control surgery (DCS) to prevent or treat abdominal compartment syndrome and the lethal triad. However, DCS is still a subject of controversy. As a concept, DCS describes a series of abbreviated surgical procedures to allow rapid source control of hemorrhage and contamination in patients with circulatory shock to allow resuscitation and stabilization in the intensive care unit followed by delayed return to the operating room for definitive surgical management once the patient becomes physiologic stable. If appropriately applied, the DCS morbidity and mortality can be significantly reduced.

Longitudinal study evaluating post-ICU syndrome differences between acute care surgery and trauma SICU survivors

BACKGROUND

Post-intensive care unit (ICU) syndrome (PICS) occurs at an exorbitant rate in surgical ICU (SICU) survivors. It remains unknown if critical illness due to trauma versus acute care surgery (ACS) may represent different pathophysiologic entities. In this longitudinal study, we determined if admission criteria in a cohort of trauma and ACS patients were associated with differences in the occurrence of PICS.

METHODS

Patients were 18 years or older, admitted to a Level I trauma center to the trauma or ACS services, remained in the SICU for ≥72 hours, and were seen in an ICU Recovery Center at 2 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks after hospital discharge. Post-ICU syndrome sequelae were diagnosed by dedicated specialist staffing using clinical criteria and screening questionnaires. The PICS symptoms were distilled into physical, cognitive, and psychiatric categories. Preadmission histories, hospital courses, and recovery data were collected via retrospective chart review.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-six patients were included: 74 (57.3%) trauma patients and 55 (42.6%) ACS patients. Prehospital psychosocial histories were similar between groups. Acute care surgery patients had a significantly longer hospital course, higher APACHE II and III scores, were intubated for longer, and had higher rates of sepsis, acute renal failure, open abdomen, and hospital readmissions. At the 2-week follow-up visit, ACS patients had higher rates of PICS sequelae (ACS, 97.8% vs. trauma 85.3%; p = 0.03), particularly in the physical (ACS, 95.6% vs. trauma 82.0%, p = 0.04), and psychiatric domains (ACS, 55.6% vs. trauma 35.0%, p = 0.04). At the 12-week and 24-week visits, rates of PICS symptoms were comparable between groups.

CONCLUSION

The occurrence of PICS is extraordinarily high in both trauma and ACS SICU survivors. Despite entering the SICU with similar psychosocial histories, the two cohorts have different pathophysiologic experiences, which are associated with a higher rate of impairment in the ACS patients during early follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

The variable role of damage control laparotomy over 19 years of trauma care in Pennsylvania

BACKGROUND

Damage control laparotomy emphasizes physiologic stabilization of critically injured patients and allows staged surgical management. However, there is little consensus on the optimal criteria for damage control laparotomy. We examined variability between centers and over time in Pennsylvania.

METHODS

We analyzed the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study data between 2000 and 2018, excluding centers performing <10 laparotomies/year. Laparotomy was defined using International Classification of Diseases codes, and damage control laparotomy was defined by a code for "reopening of recent laparotomy" or a return to the operating room >4 hours from index laparotomy that was not unplanned. We examined trends over time and by center. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to predict both damage control laparotomy and mortality, generate observed:expected ratios, and identify outliers for each. We compared risk-adjusted mortality rates to center-level damage control laparotomy rates.

RESULTS

In total, 18,896 laparotomies from 22 centers were analyzed; 3,549 damage control laparotomies were performed (18.8% of all laparotomies). The use of damage control laparotomy in Pennsylvania varied from 13.9% to 22.8% over time. There was wide variation in center-level use of damage control laparotomy, from 11.1% to 29.4%, despite adjustment. Factors associated with damage control laparotomy included injury severity and admission vital signs. Center identity improved the model as demonstrated by likelihood ratio test (P < .001), suggesting differences in center-level practices. There was minimal correlation between center-level damage control laparotomy use and mortality.

CONCLUSION

There is wide center-level variation in the use of damage control laparotomy among centers, despite adjustment for patient factors. Damage control laparotomy is both resource intensive and highly morbid; regional resources should be allocated to address this substantial practice variation to optimize damage control laparotomy use.

Using a real-time ABCDEF compliance tool to understand the role of bundle elements in mortality and delirium

BACKGROUND

ABC-123, a novel Epic electronic medical record real-time score, assigns 0 to 3 points per bundle element to assess ABCDEF bundle compliance. We sought to determine if maximum daily ABC-123 score (ABC-MAX), individual bundle elements, and mobility were associated with mortality and delirium-free/coma-free intensive care unit (DF/CF-ICU) days in critically injured patients.

METHODS

We reviewed 6 months of single-center data (demographics, Injury Severity Score [ISS], Abbreviated Injury Scale of the head [AIS-Head] score, ventilator and restraint use, Richmond Agitation Sedation Score, Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, ABC-MAX, ABC-123 subscores, and mobility level). Hospital mortality and likelihood of DF/CF-ICU days were endpoints for logistic regression with ISS, AIS-Head, surgery, penetrating trauma, sex, age, restraint and ventilator use, ABC-MAX or individual ABC-123 subscores, and mobility level or a binary variable representing any improvement in mobility during admission.

RESULTS

We reviewed 172 patients (69.8% male; 16.3% penetrating; median age, 50.0 years [IQR, 32.0-64.8 years]; ISS, 17.0 [11.0-26.0]; AIS-Head, 2.0 [0.0-3.0]). Of all patients, 66.9% had delirium, 48.8% were restrained, 51.7% were ventilated, and 11.0% died. Age, ISS, AIS-Head, and penetrating mechanism were associated with increased mortality. Restraints were associated with more than 70% reduction in odds of DF/CF-ICU days. Maximum daily ABC-123 score and mobility level were associated with decreased odds of death and increased odds of DF/CF-ICU days. Any improvement in mobility during hospitalization was associated with an 83% reduction in mortality odds. A and C subscores were associated with increased mortality, and A was also associated with decreased DF/CF-ICU days. B and D subscores were associated with increased DF/CF-ICU days. D and E subscores were associated with decreased mortality.

CONCLUSION

Maximum daily ABC-123 score is associated with reduced mortality and delirium in critically injured patients, while mobility is associated with dramatic reduction in mortality. B and D subscores have the strongest positive effects on both mortality and delirium.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Delayed fascial closure in nontrauma abdominal emergencies: A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND

Initially used in trauma management, delayed abdominal closure endeavors to decrease operative time during the index operation while still being lifesaving. Its use in emergency general surgery is increasing, but the data evaluating its outcome are sparse. We aimed to study the association between delayed abdominal closure, mortality, morbidity, and length of stay in an emergency surgery cohort.

METHODS

The 2013 to 2017 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was examined for patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. The patients were classified by the timing of abdominal wall closure: delayed fascial closure versus immediate fascial closure. Propensity score matching was performed based on preoperative covariates, wound classification, and performance of bowel resection. The outcomes were then compared by univariable analysis.

RESULTS

After matching, both the delayed fascial closure and immediate fascial closure groups consisted of 3,354 patients each. Median age was 65 years, and 52.6% were female. The delayed fascial closure group had a higher in-hospital mortality (35.3% vs 25.0%, P < .001), a higher 30-day mortality (38.6% vs 29.0%, P < .001), a higher proportion of acute kidney injury (9.5% vs 6.6%, P < .001), a lower proportion of postoperative sepsis (11.8% vs 15.6%, P < .001), and a lower proportion of surgical site infection (3.4% vs 7.0%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Compared with immediate fascial closure, delayed fascial closure is associated with an increased mortality in the patients matched based on comorbidities and surgical site contamination. In emergency general surgery, delaying abdominal closure may not have the presumed overarching benefits, and its indications must be further defined in this population.

Damage-control surgery in patients with nontraumatic abdominal emergencies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

After the successful implementation in trauma, damage-control surgery (DCS) is being increasingly used in patients with nontraumatic emergencies. However, the role of DCS in the nontrauma setting is not well defined. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of DCS on mortality in patients with nontraumatic abdominal emergencies.

METHODS

Systematic literature search was done using PubMed. Original articles addressing nontrauma DCS were included. Two meta-analyses were performed, comparing (1) mortality in patients undergoing nontrauma DCS versus conventional surgery (CS) and (2) the observed versus expected mortality rate in the DCS group. Expected mortality was derived from Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation, Simplified Acute Physiology Score, and Portsmouth Physiological and Operative Severity Score for enUmeration of Mortality and Morbidity scores.

RESULTS

A total of five nonrandomized prospective and 16 retrospective studies were included. Nontrauma DCS was performed in 1,238 and nontrauma CS in 936 patients. Frequent indications for surgery in the DCS group were (weighted proportions) hollow viscus perforation (28.5%), mesenteric ischemia (26.5%), anastomotic leak and postoperative peritonitis (19.6%), nontraumatic hemorrhage (18.4%), abdominal compartment syndrome (17.8%), bowel obstruction (15.5%), and pancreatitis (12.9%). In meta-analysis 1, including eight studies, mortality was not significantly different between the nontrauma DCS and CS group (risk difference, 0.09; 95% confidence interval, -0.06 to 0.24). Meta-analysis 2, including 14 studies, revealed a significantly lower observed than expected mortality rate in patients undergoing nontrauma DCS (risk difference, -0.18; 95% confidence interval, -0.29 to -0.06).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis revealed no significantly different mortality in patients undergoing nontrauma DCS versus CS. However, observed mortality was significantly lower than the expected mortality rate in the DCS group, suggesting a benefit of the DCS approach. Based on these two findings, the effect of DCS on mortality in patients with nontraumatic abdominal emergencies remains unclear. Further prospective investigation into this topic is warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III.

Time is domain: factors affecting primary fascial closure after trauma and non-trauma damage control laparotomy (data from the EAST SLEEP-TIME multicenter registry)

PURPOSE

Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is used for both traumatic and non-traumatic indications. Failure to achieve primary fascial closure (PFC) in a timely fashion has been associated with complications including sepsis, fistula, and mortality. We sought to identify factors associated with time to PFC in a multicenter retrospective cohort.

METHODS

We reviewed retrospective data from 15 centers in the EAST SLEEP-TIME registry, including age, comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index [CCI]), small and large bowel resection, bowel discontinuity, vascular procedures, retained packs, number of re-laparotomies, net fluid balance after 24 h, trauma, and time to first takeback in 12-h increments to identify key factors associated with time to PFC.

RESULTS

In total, 368 patients (71.2% trauma, of which 50.6% were penetrating, median ISS 25 [16, 34], with median Apache II score 15 [11, 22] in non-trauma) were in the cohort. Of these, 92.9% of patients achieved PFC at 60.8 ± 72.0 h after 1.6 ± 1.2 re-laparotomies. Each additional re-laparotomy reduced the odds of PFC by 91.5% (95%CI 88.2-93.9%, p < 0.001). Time to first re-laparotomy was highly significant (p < 0.001) in terms of odds of achieving PFC, with no difference between 12 and 24 h to first re-laparotomy (ref), and decreases in odds of PFC of 78.4% (65.8-86.4%, p < 0.001) for first re-laparotomy after 24.1-36 h, 90.8% (84.7-94.4%, p < 0.001) for 36.1-48 h, and 98.1% (96.4-99.0%, p < 0.001) for > 48 h. Trauma patients had increased likelihood of PFC in two separate analyses (p = 0.022 and 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Time to re-laparotomy ≤ 24 h and minimizing number of re-laparotomies are highly predictive of rapid achievement of PFC in patients after trauma- and non-trauma DCL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2B.

Dexmedetomidine and paralytic exposure after damage control laparotomy: risk factors for delirium? Results from the EAST SLEEP-TIME multicenter trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate factors associated with ICU delirium in patients who underwent damage control laparotomy (DCL), with the hypothesis that benzodiazepines and paralytic infusions would be associated with increased delirium risk. We also sought to evaluate the differences in sedation practices between trauma (T) and non-trauma (NT) patients.

METHODS

We reviewed retrospective data from 15 centers in the EAST SLEEP-TIME registry admitted from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2018. We included all adults undergoing DCL, regardless of diagnosis, who had completed daily Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS) and Confusion Assessment Method-ICU (CAM-ICU). We excluded patients younger than 18 years, pregnant women, prisoners and patients who died before the first re-laparotomy. Data collected included age, number of re-laparotomies after DCL, duration of paralytic infusion, duration and type of sedative and opioid infusions as well as daily CAM-ICU and RASS scores to analyze risk factors associated with the proportion of delirium-free/coma-free ICU days during the first 30 days (DF/CF-ICU-30) using multivariate linear regression.

RESULTS

A 353 patient subset (73.2% trauma) from the overall 567-patient cohort had complete daily RASS and CAM-ICU data. NT patients were older (58.9 ± 16.0 years vs 40.5 ± 17.0 years [p < 0.001]). Mean DF/CF-ICU-30 days was 73.7 ± 96.4% for the NT and 51.3 ± 38.7% in the T patients (p = 0.030). More T patients were exposed to Midazolam, 41.3% vs 20.3% (p = 0.002). More T patients were exposed to Propofol, 91.0% vs 71.9% (p < 0.001) with longer infusion times in T compared to NT (71.2 ± 85.9 vs 48.9 ± 69.8 h [p = 0.017]). Paralytic infusions were also used more in T compared to NT, 34.8% vs 18.2% (p < 0.001). Using linear regression, dexmedetomidine infusion and paralytic infusions were associated with decreases in DF/CF-ICU-30, (- 2.78 (95%CI [- 5.54, - 0.024], p = 0.040) and (- 7.08 ([- 13.0, - 1.10], p = 0.020) respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the relationship between paralytic use and delirium is well-established, the observation that dexmedetomidine exposure is independently associated with increased delirium and coma is novel and bears further study.