AAST Annual Meeting 2016

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – The risk of anastomotic failure among emergency general surgery patients requiring bowel resection and anastomosis stands at 12.5% and is similar between stapled and hand-sewn techniques, results from a multicenter analysis demonstrated.

Surgeons participating in the study, known as Stapled vs. Handsewn: A Prospective Emergency Surgery Study (SHAPES), “appear to be performing hand-sewn techniques in patients who have a higher burden of disease,” Brandon R. Bruns, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “Without adjustment and despite being performed in a more ill population, there was no difference in failure rate between hand-sewn and stapled techniques. After modeling, only being managed with an open abdomen and contamination at initial operation were associated with anastomotic failure.”

For SHAPES, which is the largest study of its kind and was sponsored by the AAST Multi-Institutional Studies Committee, Dr. Bruns and his associates set out to prospectively evaluate anastomotic failure rates for hand-sewn and stapled anastomoses in patients undergoing urgent/emergent operations. A 1999 study by Seattle researchers found that stapled techniques seemed to be associated with anastomotic failure (J Trauma. 1999;47[3]:500-08). Two years later, the same researchers pooled 4-year retrospective data from four trauma centers and concluded that again, hand-sewn techniques appeared to be superior to stapled techniques after traumatic bowel resection and anastomosis (J Trauma. 2001;51[6]:1054-61). Also in 2001, AAST sponsored a multi-institutional study that examined the same question, this time in penetrative colonic injury. Investigators found no difference in complications between the two groups (J Trauma. 2002;52[1]:117-21). They did, however, find a 22.7% overall incidence of colon-related complications.

“With this background we hypothesized that anastomotic failure rate would be high for emergency general surgery patients undergoing bowel resection and anastomosis,” said Dr. Bruns, an acute care surgeon at the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore. “We also hypothesized that failure rates would be higher for stapled techniques, compared with hand-sewn.”

The SHAPES researchers prospectively enrolled 595 patients at 15 medical centers in the United States who underwent urgent/emergent bowel resection for emergency general surgery pathology between July 22, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015. The patients were grouped by hand-sewn vs. stapled anastomoses and demographic and clinical variables were collected. The primary outcome was anastomotic failure. As in other studies, anastomotic failure was evaluated at the anastomosis level. Multivariable logistic regression was done, controlling for age and risk factors for anastomotic failure.

Dr. Bruns reported that the 595 patients had 649 anastomoses. Of these, 61% were stapled and 39% were hand-sewn. The mean age of patients was 62 years, 51% were male, and the overall mortality rate was 7.7%. More than two-thirds of the patients (35%) had more than one indication for operative intervention. The most common single indication for operation was small bowel obstruction, at 23%. The majority of the anastomoses were small bowel to small bowel (72%), while 21% were small bowel to large bowel, and 7% were large bowel to large bowel. There were a total of 81 anastomotic failures, for a rate of 12.5%.

When the researchers compared the hand-sewn and stapled groups, they were similar with respect to sex and age, with higher Charlson comorbidity indices in stapled and a higher body mass index in the hand-sewn group. They also observed a lower hemoglobin, higher INR, higher lactate, lower albumin, and worse renal function in the hand-sewn group, compared with the stapled group. Moreover, hand-sewn anastomotic techniques were performed more frequently in patients that were on vasopressor support. “Despite patients receiving hand-sewn techniques, having worse laboratory values, and more intraoperative vasopressors, the two techniques had equivalent failure rates, at 15.4% for hand-sewn and 10.6% for stapled,” Dr. Bruns said. “Patients with hand-sewn techniques had longer hospital length of stay, longer ICU length of stay, and a significantly higher mortality, compared with those who underwent stapled techniques. Interestingly and different from most other studies on the topic, operating time between the two groups was equivalent.”

On multivariate regression, the presence of contamination at initial bowel resection (OR 1.96) and the patient being managed with an open abdomen (OR 2.53) were independently associated with anastomotic failure, while the type of anastomosis (hand-sewn vs. stapled) was not.

The researchers also conducted a subanalysis of 165 patients managed with an open abdomen who had bowel resection and anastomosis. These patients had higher BMIs, higher lactates, higher INRs, and more negative base deficits, compared with those who were not managed with an open abdomen. “Perhaps not unexpectedly, open abdomen patients were more likely to be on vasopressor agents,” Dr. Bruns said. “They had longer hospital lengths of stay, more ICU days, and an 18.2% overall mortality. Overall there was an almost 22% anastomotic failure rate in patients managed with an open abdomen, compared with an 8.5% rate in patients managed with non-open techniques.” Comparing hand-sewn and stapled techniques, there was no difference in failure rate in patients managed with an open abdomen (25.2% vs. 17.5%, respectively; P = .20).

“An overall mortality rate of 8% and an anastomotic complication rate of 12.5% should emphasize the dire needs for these operations and the need for meticulous operative as well as surgically directed perioperative care in these patients,” the invited discussant, Gregory Jurkovich, MD, professor of surgery at the Davis Medical Center, University of California, said at the meeting. “We as surgeons must pay attention to all aspects of care in these patients.”

Dr. Bruns acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was not a randomized, controlled trial. Also, “surgeon preference did dictate the type of anastomosis that was created, and the patient and surgeon populations were heterogeneous,” he said. “The multivariable model was limited by missing laboratory data, likely given the urgent nature of some of the operative procedures.”

He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – The risk of anastomotic failure among emergency general surgery patients requiring bowel resection and anastomosis stands at 12.5% and is similar between stapled and hand-sewn techniques, results from a multicenter analysis demonstrated.

Surgeons participating in the study, known as Stapled vs. Handsewn: A Prospective Emergency Surgery Study (SHAPES), “appear to be performing hand-sewn techniques in patients who have a higher burden of disease,” Brandon R. Bruns, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “Without adjustment and despite being performed in a more ill population, there was no difference in failure rate between hand-sewn and stapled techniques. After modeling, only being managed with an open abdomen and contamination at initial operation were associated with anastomotic failure.”

For SHAPES, which is the largest study of its kind and was sponsored by the AAST Multi-Institutional Studies Committee, Dr. Bruns and his associates set out to prospectively evaluate anastomotic failure rates for hand-sewn and stapled anastomoses in patients undergoing urgent/emergent operations. A 1999 study by Seattle researchers found that stapled techniques seemed to be associated with anastomotic failure (J Trauma. 1999;47[3]:500-08). Two years later, the same researchers pooled 4-year retrospective data from four trauma centers and concluded that again, hand-sewn techniques appeared to be superior to stapled techniques after traumatic bowel resection and anastomosis (J Trauma. 2001;51[6]:1054-61). Also in 2001, AAST sponsored a multi-institutional study that examined the same question, this time in penetrative colonic injury. Investigators found no difference in complications between the two groups (J Trauma. 2002;52[1]:117-21). They did, however, find a 22.7% overall incidence of colon-related complications.

“With this background we hypothesized that anastomotic failure rate would be high for emergency general surgery patients undergoing bowel resection and anastomosis,” said Dr. Bruns, an acute care surgeon at the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore. “We also hypothesized that failure rates would be higher for stapled techniques, compared with hand-sewn.”

The SHAPES researchers prospectively enrolled 595 patients at 15 medical centers in the United States who underwent urgent/emergent bowel resection for emergency general surgery pathology between July 22, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015. The patients were grouped by hand-sewn vs. stapled anastomoses and demographic and clinical variables were collected. The primary outcome was anastomotic failure. As in other studies, anastomotic failure was evaluated at the anastomosis level. Multivariable logistic regression was done, controlling for age and risk factors for anastomotic failure.

Dr. Bruns reported that the 595 patients had 649 anastomoses. Of these, 61% were stapled and 39% were hand-sewn. The mean age of patients was 62 years, 51% were male, and the overall mortality rate was 7.7%. More than two-thirds of the patients (35%) had more than one indication for operative intervention. The most common single indication for operation was small bowel obstruction, at 23%. The majority of the anastomoses were small bowel to small bowel (72%), while 21% were small bowel to large bowel, and 7% were large bowel to large bowel. There were a total of 81 anastomotic failures, for a rate of 12.5%.

When the researchers compared the hand-sewn and stapled groups, they were similar with respect to sex and age, with higher Charlson comorbidity indices in stapled and a higher body mass index in the hand-sewn group. They also observed a lower hemoglobin, higher INR, higher lactate, lower albumin, and worse renal function in the hand-sewn group, compared with the stapled group. Moreover, hand-sewn anastomotic techniques were performed more frequently in patients that were on vasopressor support. “Despite patients receiving hand-sewn techniques, having worse laboratory values, and more intraoperative vasopressors, the two techniques had equivalent failure rates, at 15.4% for hand-sewn and 10.6% for stapled,” Dr. Bruns said. “Patients with hand-sewn techniques had longer hospital length of stay, longer ICU length of stay, and a significantly higher mortality, compared with those who underwent stapled techniques. Interestingly and different from most other studies on the topic, operating time between the two groups was equivalent.”

On multivariate regression, the presence of contamination at initial bowel resection (OR 1.96) and the patient being managed with an open abdomen (OR 2.53) were independently associated with anastomotic failure, while the type of anastomosis (hand-sewn vs. stapled) was not.

The researchers also conducted a subanalysis of 165 patients managed with an open abdomen who had bowel resection and anastomosis. These patients had higher BMIs, higher lactates, higher INRs, and more negative base deficits, compared with those who were not managed with an open abdomen. “Perhaps not unexpectedly, open abdomen patients were more likely to be on vasopressor agents,” Dr. Bruns said. “They had longer hospital lengths of stay, more ICU days, and an 18.2% overall mortality. Overall there was an almost 22% anastomotic failure rate in patients managed with an open abdomen, compared with an 8.5% rate in patients managed with non-open techniques.” Comparing hand-sewn and stapled techniques, there was no difference in failure rate in patients managed with an open abdomen (25.2% vs. 17.5%, respectively; P = .20).

“An overall mortality rate of 8% and an anastomotic complication rate of 12.5% should emphasize the dire needs for these operations and the need for meticulous operative as well as surgically directed perioperative care in these patients,” the invited discussant, Gregory Jurkovich, MD, professor of surgery at the Davis Medical Center, University of California, said at the meeting. “We as surgeons must pay attention to all aspects of care in these patients.”

Dr. Bruns acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was not a randomized, controlled trial. Also, “surgeon preference did dictate the type of anastomosis that was created, and the patient and surgeon populations were heterogeneous,” he said. “The multivariable model was limited by missing laboratory data, likely given the urgent nature of some of the operative procedures.”

He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – The risk of anastomotic failure among emergency general surgery patients requiring bowel resection and anastomosis stands at 12.5% and is similar between stapled and hand-sewn techniques, results from a multicenter analysis demonstrated.

Surgeons participating in the study, known as Stapled vs. Handsewn: A Prospective Emergency Surgery Study (SHAPES), “appear to be performing hand-sewn techniques in patients who have a higher burden of disease,” Brandon R. Bruns, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “Without adjustment and despite being performed in a more ill population, there was no difference in failure rate between hand-sewn and stapled techniques. After modeling, only being managed with an open abdomen and contamination at initial operation were associated with anastomotic failure.”

For SHAPES, which is the largest study of its kind and was sponsored by the AAST Multi-Institutional Studies Committee, Dr. Bruns and his associates set out to prospectively evaluate anastomotic failure rates for hand-sewn and stapled anastomoses in patients undergoing urgent/emergent operations. A 1999 study by Seattle researchers found that stapled techniques seemed to be associated with anastomotic failure (J Trauma. 1999;47[3]:500-08). Two years later, the same researchers pooled 4-year retrospective data from four trauma centers and concluded that again, hand-sewn techniques appeared to be superior to stapled techniques after traumatic bowel resection and anastomosis (J Trauma. 2001;51[6]:1054-61). Also in 2001, AAST sponsored a multi-institutional study that examined the same question, this time in penetrative colonic injury. Investigators found no difference in complications between the two groups (J Trauma. 2002;52[1]:117-21). They did, however, find a 22.7% overall incidence of colon-related complications.

“With this background we hypothesized that anastomotic failure rate would be high for emergency general surgery patients undergoing bowel resection and anastomosis,” said Dr. Bruns, an acute care surgeon at the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore. “We also hypothesized that failure rates would be higher for stapled techniques, compared with hand-sewn.”

The SHAPES researchers prospectively enrolled 595 patients at 15 medical centers in the United States who underwent urgent/emergent bowel resection for emergency general surgery pathology between July 22, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2015. The patients were grouped by hand-sewn vs. stapled anastomoses and demographic and clinical variables were collected. The primary outcome was anastomotic failure. As in other studies, anastomotic failure was evaluated at the anastomosis level. Multivariable logistic regression was done, controlling for age and risk factors for anastomotic failure.

Dr. Bruns reported that the 595 patients had 649 anastomoses. Of these, 61% were stapled and 39% were hand-sewn. The mean age of patients was 62 years, 51% were male, and the overall mortality rate was 7.7%. More than two-thirds of the patients (35%) had more than one indication for operative intervention. The most common single indication for operation was small bowel obstruction, at 23%. The majority of the anastomoses were small bowel to small bowel (72%), while 21% were small bowel to large bowel, and 7% were large bowel to large bowel. There were a total of 81 anastomotic failures, for a rate of 12.5%.

When the researchers compared the hand-sewn and stapled groups, they were similar with respect to sex and age, with higher Charlson comorbidity indices in stapled and a higher body mass index in the hand-sewn group. They also observed a lower hemoglobin, higher INR, higher lactate, lower albumin, and worse renal function in the hand-sewn group, compared with the stapled group. Moreover, hand-sewn anastomotic techniques were performed more frequently in patients that were on vasopressor support. “Despite patients receiving hand-sewn techniques, having worse laboratory values, and more intraoperative vasopressors, the two techniques had equivalent failure rates, at 15.4% for hand-sewn and 10.6% for stapled,” Dr. Bruns said. “Patients with hand-sewn techniques had longer hospital length of stay, longer ICU length of stay, and a significantly higher mortality, compared with those who underwent stapled techniques. Interestingly and different from most other studies on the topic, operating time between the two groups was equivalent.”

On multivariate regression, the presence of contamination at initial bowel resection (OR 1.96) and the patient being managed with an open abdomen (OR 2.53) were independently associated with anastomotic failure, while the type of anastomosis (hand-sewn vs. stapled) was not.

The researchers also conducted a subanalysis of 165 patients managed with an open abdomen who had bowel resection and anastomosis. These patients had higher BMIs, higher lactates, higher INRs, and more negative base deficits, compared with those who were not managed with an open abdomen. “Perhaps not unexpectedly, open abdomen patients were more likely to be on vasopressor agents,” Dr. Bruns said. “They had longer hospital lengths of stay, more ICU days, and an 18.2% overall mortality. Overall there was an almost 22% anastomotic failure rate in patients managed with an open abdomen, compared with an 8.5% rate in patients managed with non-open techniques.” Comparing hand-sewn and stapled techniques, there was no difference in failure rate in patients managed with an open abdomen (25.2% vs. 17.5%, respectively; P = .20).

“An overall mortality rate of 8% and an anastomotic complication rate of 12.5% should emphasize the dire needs for these operations and the need for meticulous operative as well as surgically directed perioperative care in these patients,” the invited discussant, Gregory Jurkovich, MD, professor of surgery at the Davis Medical Center, University of California, said at the meeting. “We as surgeons must pay attention to all aspects of care in these patients.”

Dr. Bruns acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was not a randomized, controlled trial. Also, “surgeon preference did dictate the type of anastomosis that was created, and the patient and surgeon populations were heterogeneous,” he said. “The multivariable model was limited by missing laboratory data, likely given the urgent nature of some of the operative procedures.”

He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), Grace S. Rozycki, MD, highlighted findings from a survey of 62 seasoned surgeons who were asked to share their insights, advice, and practical suggestions on how to transmit wisdom to the next generation of surgeons.

Dr. Rozycki is professor of surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and is the current president of the AAST. She reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), Grace S. Rozycki, MD, highlighted findings from a survey of 62 seasoned surgeons who were asked to share their insights, advice, and practical suggestions on how to transmit wisdom to the next generation of surgeons.

Dr. Rozycki is professor of surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and is the current president of the AAST. She reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – At the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), Grace S. Rozycki, MD, highlighted findings from a survey of 62 seasoned surgeons who were asked to share their insights, advice, and practical suggestions on how to transmit wisdom to the next generation of surgeons.

Dr. Rozycki is professor of surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis, and is the current president of the AAST. She reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – The FRAIL scale questionnaire predicts functional status and mortality at 1 year among geriatric trauma patients and is a useful tool for bedside screening by clinicians, results from a single-center study demonstrated.

“Over the past 2 years, the implications of frailty among the geriatric trauma population have gained much attention in the trauma community,” Cathy A. Maxwell, PhD, RN, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “This work highlights the clinical utility of the FRAIL scale for screening injured older patients who are admitted to trauma centers and other acute care hospitals. Hopefully, it will encourage trauma care providers to use the instrument to identify older patients’ pre-injury/baseline status and to obtain a frailty risk adjustment measure for quality improvement efforts.”

Developed by the International Association of Nutrition and Aging, the validated five-item FRAIL scale requires answers to questions about fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illnesses, and loss of weight (J Nutr Health Aging. 2012;16[7]:601-8). In an effort to examine the influence of pre-injury physical frailty (as measured by FRAIL) on 1-year outcomes, Dr. Maxwell, of the Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and her associates evaluated injured patients aged 65 and older who were admitted through the ED between October 2013 and March 2014 and who participated in a prior study (J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80[2]:195-203). The researchers identified the five items of the FRAIL instrument from that study and created a pre-injury FRAIL score for each patient.

Dr. Maxwell reported results from 188 patients with a median age of 77, a median Injury Severity Score of 10, and a median comorbidity index of 3. Upon admission to the ED, 63 patients (34%) screened as frail (defined as a FRAIL score of 3 or greater), 71 (38%) screened as pre-frail (defined as a FRAIL score of 1-2), and 54 (29%) screened as non-frail (defined as a FRAIL score of zero). Frequencies for components of the FRAIL score were as follows: fatigue (65%), resistance (32%), ambulation (40%), illnesses (27%), and loss of weight (6%).

After the researchers controlled for age, comorbidities, injury severity, and cognitive status via the Ascertain Dementia 8-item Informant Questionnaire (AD8), they found that pre-injury FRAIL scores explained about 13% of the variability in physical function as measured by the Barthel Index (P less than .001). A total of 47 patients (26%) died within 1 year of admission. Logistic regression analysis revealed that after adjustment for these same variables, the higher the pre-injury FRAIL score, the greater the likelihood of mortality within 1 year (odds ratio, 1.74; P = .001).

“The FRAIL scale predicts functional decline and mortality in geriatric trauma patients and is a useful tool for clinicians,” Dr. Maxwell concluded. “Bedside nurses in our trauma unit at Vanderbilt University Medical Center are currently using this instrument to screen our older patients. We have seen an increase in earlier geriatric palliative care consultations as a result of our screening efforts.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was a secondary analysis. “We created FRAIL scale scores for 188 patients from six different data sources, thus, the created scores may not accurately represent actual prospectively collected FRAIL scores,” Dr. Maxwell said. “That being said, we compared the frailty frequencies from this study with actual FRAIL scale scores (from current bedside FRAIL screens) and we are seeing similar percentages of patients in non-frail, pre-frail and frail categories. This strengthens the findings of this study.”

She reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – The FRAIL scale questionnaire predicts functional status and mortality at 1 year among geriatric trauma patients and is a useful tool for bedside screening by clinicians, results from a single-center study demonstrated.

“Over the past 2 years, the implications of frailty among the geriatric trauma population have gained much attention in the trauma community,” Cathy A. Maxwell, PhD, RN, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “This work highlights the clinical utility of the FRAIL scale for screening injured older patients who are admitted to trauma centers and other acute care hospitals. Hopefully, it will encourage trauma care providers to use the instrument to identify older patients’ pre-injury/baseline status and to obtain a frailty risk adjustment measure for quality improvement efforts.”

Developed by the International Association of Nutrition and Aging, the validated five-item FRAIL scale requires answers to questions about fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illnesses, and loss of weight (J Nutr Health Aging. 2012;16[7]:601-8). In an effort to examine the influence of pre-injury physical frailty (as measured by FRAIL) on 1-year outcomes, Dr. Maxwell, of the Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and her associates evaluated injured patients aged 65 and older who were admitted through the ED between October 2013 and March 2014 and who participated in a prior study (J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80[2]:195-203). The researchers identified the five items of the FRAIL instrument from that study and created a pre-injury FRAIL score for each patient.

Dr. Maxwell reported results from 188 patients with a median age of 77, a median Injury Severity Score of 10, and a median comorbidity index of 3. Upon admission to the ED, 63 patients (34%) screened as frail (defined as a FRAIL score of 3 or greater), 71 (38%) screened as pre-frail (defined as a FRAIL score of 1-2), and 54 (29%) screened as non-frail (defined as a FRAIL score of zero). Frequencies for components of the FRAIL score were as follows: fatigue (65%), resistance (32%), ambulation (40%), illnesses (27%), and loss of weight (6%).

After the researchers controlled for age, comorbidities, injury severity, and cognitive status via the Ascertain Dementia 8-item Informant Questionnaire (AD8), they found that pre-injury FRAIL scores explained about 13% of the variability in physical function as measured by the Barthel Index (P less than .001). A total of 47 patients (26%) died within 1 year of admission. Logistic regression analysis revealed that after adjustment for these same variables, the higher the pre-injury FRAIL score, the greater the likelihood of mortality within 1 year (odds ratio, 1.74; P = .001).

“The FRAIL scale predicts functional decline and mortality in geriatric trauma patients and is a useful tool for clinicians,” Dr. Maxwell concluded. “Bedside nurses in our trauma unit at Vanderbilt University Medical Center are currently using this instrument to screen our older patients. We have seen an increase in earlier geriatric palliative care consultations as a result of our screening efforts.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was a secondary analysis. “We created FRAIL scale scores for 188 patients from six different data sources, thus, the created scores may not accurately represent actual prospectively collected FRAIL scores,” Dr. Maxwell said. “That being said, we compared the frailty frequencies from this study with actual FRAIL scale scores (from current bedside FRAIL screens) and we are seeing similar percentages of patients in non-frail, pre-frail and frail categories. This strengthens the findings of this study.”

She reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HAWAII – The FRAIL scale questionnaire predicts functional status and mortality at 1 year among geriatric trauma patients and is a useful tool for bedside screening by clinicians, results from a single-center study demonstrated.

“Over the past 2 years, the implications of frailty among the geriatric trauma population have gained much attention in the trauma community,” Cathy A. Maxwell, PhD, RN, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “This work highlights the clinical utility of the FRAIL scale for screening injured older patients who are admitted to trauma centers and other acute care hospitals. Hopefully, it will encourage trauma care providers to use the instrument to identify older patients’ pre-injury/baseline status and to obtain a frailty risk adjustment measure for quality improvement efforts.”

Developed by the International Association of Nutrition and Aging, the validated five-item FRAIL scale requires answers to questions about fatigue, resistance, ambulation, illnesses, and loss of weight (J Nutr Health Aging. 2012;16[7]:601-8). In an effort to examine the influence of pre-injury physical frailty (as measured by FRAIL) on 1-year outcomes, Dr. Maxwell, of the Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and her associates evaluated injured patients aged 65 and older who were admitted through the ED between October 2013 and March 2014 and who participated in a prior study (J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;80[2]:195-203). The researchers identified the five items of the FRAIL instrument from that study and created a pre-injury FRAIL score for each patient.

Dr. Maxwell reported results from 188 patients with a median age of 77, a median Injury Severity Score of 10, and a median comorbidity index of 3. Upon admission to the ED, 63 patients (34%) screened as frail (defined as a FRAIL score of 3 or greater), 71 (38%) screened as pre-frail (defined as a FRAIL score of 1-2), and 54 (29%) screened as non-frail (defined as a FRAIL score of zero). Frequencies for components of the FRAIL score were as follows: fatigue (65%), resistance (32%), ambulation (40%), illnesses (27%), and loss of weight (6%).

After the researchers controlled for age, comorbidities, injury severity, and cognitive status via the Ascertain Dementia 8-item Informant Questionnaire (AD8), they found that pre-injury FRAIL scores explained about 13% of the variability in physical function as measured by the Barthel Index (P less than .001). A total of 47 patients (26%) died within 1 year of admission. Logistic regression analysis revealed that after adjustment for these same variables, the higher the pre-injury FRAIL score, the greater the likelihood of mortality within 1 year (odds ratio, 1.74; P = .001).

“The FRAIL scale predicts functional decline and mortality in geriatric trauma patients and is a useful tool for clinicians,” Dr. Maxwell concluded. “Bedside nurses in our trauma unit at Vanderbilt University Medical Center are currently using this instrument to screen our older patients. We have seen an increase in earlier geriatric palliative care consultations as a result of our screening efforts.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that it was a secondary analysis. “We created FRAIL scale scores for 188 patients from six different data sources, thus, the created scores may not accurately represent actual prospectively collected FRAIL scores,” Dr. Maxwell said. “That being said, we compared the frailty frequencies from this study with actual FRAIL scale scores (from current bedside FRAIL screens) and we are seeing similar percentages of patients in non-frail, pre-frail and frail categories. This strengthens the findings of this study.”

She reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HI. – If you openly share your institution’s use of damage control laparotomy, it is possible to safely decrease use of the procedure, according to results from a 2-year, single-center quality improvement project.

“Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is currently overused, both in trauma and general surgery,” John A. Harvin, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “One of the barriers to discussing the overuse is that no one knows what the ‘right’ rate of DCL should be. The vast majority of papers reporting findings regarding DCL fail to provide a denominator, thus actual rates of DCL across the country are not known. It is only by word of mouth that the overuse comes out.”

In a quality improvement (QI) project designed to decrease the rate of DCL at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Dr. Harvin and his associates prospectively evaluated all emergent laparotomies performed at the institution from November 2013 to October 2015. During year 1 of the QI project, trauma faculty completed report cards immediately following every DCL. During year 2, the researchers collectively reviewed DCLs every other month to determine which patients may have safely undergone definitive laparotomy. They prospectively compared the morbidity and mortality of patients in the quality improvement group with that of a published historical cohort group of patients who underwent emergent laparotomy between January 2011 and October 2013 (Am. J. Surg. 2016;212[1]:34-9).

Dr. Harvin of the division of acute care surgery at the university, reported that the rate of DCL among the historical control group was 39%. Soon after the QI project was implemented the DCL rate fell to 23% (P less than .05), and it declined further following completion of the project, to 18%. “This was accomplished by open discussion among our faculty on who and why DCL was done,” he said. “Over the course of the 2-year QI project, approximately 70 DCLs were avoided without an increase in complications or mortality.”

Many of the findings surprised the researchers, including the fact that the indications for DCL did not differ before and after implementation of the QI project. “So, surgeons did not necessarily abandon certain indications but used all indications more selectively,” Dr. Harvin noted. “That being said, we were able to identify a few indications for DCL that may or may not be necessary. Lastly, despite a significant reduction in the overall use of DCL, we saw no change in rates of complications. This flies in the face of many papers reporting an association between DCL and all kinds of morbidities.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the researchers identified a Hawthorne effect after implementation of the QI intervention. “Despite this, there was a sustained reduction in the rate of DCL that persisted following termination of the project,” Dr. Harvin said. “Additionally, this is not a randomized clinical trial, but a before and after trial which is subject to the usual methodological flaws such as confounding by temporal change and differences in baseline characteristics of the patient populations.” He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HI. – If you openly share your institution’s use of damage control laparotomy, it is possible to safely decrease use of the procedure, according to results from a 2-year, single-center quality improvement project.

“Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is currently overused, both in trauma and general surgery,” John A. Harvin, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “One of the barriers to discussing the overuse is that no one knows what the ‘right’ rate of DCL should be. The vast majority of papers reporting findings regarding DCL fail to provide a denominator, thus actual rates of DCL across the country are not known. It is only by word of mouth that the overuse comes out.”

In a quality improvement (QI) project designed to decrease the rate of DCL at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Dr. Harvin and his associates prospectively evaluated all emergent laparotomies performed at the institution from November 2013 to October 2015. During year 1 of the QI project, trauma faculty completed report cards immediately following every DCL. During year 2, the researchers collectively reviewed DCLs every other month to determine which patients may have safely undergone definitive laparotomy. They prospectively compared the morbidity and mortality of patients in the quality improvement group with that of a published historical cohort group of patients who underwent emergent laparotomy between January 2011 and October 2013 (Am. J. Surg. 2016;212[1]:34-9).

Dr. Harvin of the division of acute care surgery at the university, reported that the rate of DCL among the historical control group was 39%. Soon after the QI project was implemented the DCL rate fell to 23% (P less than .05), and it declined further following completion of the project, to 18%. “This was accomplished by open discussion among our faculty on who and why DCL was done,” he said. “Over the course of the 2-year QI project, approximately 70 DCLs were avoided without an increase in complications or mortality.”

Many of the findings surprised the researchers, including the fact that the indications for DCL did not differ before and after implementation of the QI project. “So, surgeons did not necessarily abandon certain indications but used all indications more selectively,” Dr. Harvin noted. “That being said, we were able to identify a few indications for DCL that may or may not be necessary. Lastly, despite a significant reduction in the overall use of DCL, we saw no change in rates of complications. This flies in the face of many papers reporting an association between DCL and all kinds of morbidities.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the researchers identified a Hawthorne effect after implementation of the QI intervention. “Despite this, there was a sustained reduction in the rate of DCL that persisted following termination of the project,” Dr. Harvin said. “Additionally, this is not a randomized clinical trial, but a before and after trial which is subject to the usual methodological flaws such as confounding by temporal change and differences in baseline characteristics of the patient populations.” He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HI. – If you openly share your institution’s use of damage control laparotomy, it is possible to safely decrease use of the procedure, according to results from a 2-year, single-center quality improvement project.

“Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is currently overused, both in trauma and general surgery,” John A. Harvin, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “One of the barriers to discussing the overuse is that no one knows what the ‘right’ rate of DCL should be. The vast majority of papers reporting findings regarding DCL fail to provide a denominator, thus actual rates of DCL across the country are not known. It is only by word of mouth that the overuse comes out.”

In a quality improvement (QI) project designed to decrease the rate of DCL at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston, Dr. Harvin and his associates prospectively evaluated all emergent laparotomies performed at the institution from November 2013 to October 2015. During year 1 of the QI project, trauma faculty completed report cards immediately following every DCL. During year 2, the researchers collectively reviewed DCLs every other month to determine which patients may have safely undergone definitive laparotomy. They prospectively compared the morbidity and mortality of patients in the quality improvement group with that of a published historical cohort group of patients who underwent emergent laparotomy between January 2011 and October 2013 (Am. J. Surg. 2016;212[1]:34-9).

Dr. Harvin of the division of acute care surgery at the university, reported that the rate of DCL among the historical control group was 39%. Soon after the QI project was implemented the DCL rate fell to 23% (P less than .05), and it declined further following completion of the project, to 18%. “This was accomplished by open discussion among our faculty on who and why DCL was done,” he said. “Over the course of the 2-year QI project, approximately 70 DCLs were avoided without an increase in complications or mortality.”

Many of the findings surprised the researchers, including the fact that the indications for DCL did not differ before and after implementation of the QI project. “So, surgeons did not necessarily abandon certain indications but used all indications more selectively,” Dr. Harvin noted. “That being said, we were able to identify a few indications for DCL that may or may not be necessary. Lastly, despite a significant reduction in the overall use of DCL, we saw no change in rates of complications. This flies in the face of many papers reporting an association between DCL and all kinds of morbidities.”

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the researchers identified a Hawthorne effect after implementation of the QI intervention. “Despite this, there was a sustained reduction in the rate of DCL that persisted following termination of the project,” Dr. Harvin said. “Additionally, this is not a randomized clinical trial, but a before and after trial which is subject to the usual methodological flaws such as confounding by temporal change and differences in baseline characteristics of the patient populations.” He reported having no financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HI. – For gunshot wounds, the current “cardiac box” was the poorest predictor of cardiac injury, results from a single-center retrospective study demonstrated.

“We determined that, from a statistical standpoint, the cardiac box should be redefined to include the area of the thorax that extends from the clavicle to xiphoid and from the anterior midline to the posterior midline of the left thorax,” Bryan C. Morse, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “The classic cardiac box is inadequate to discriminate whether a gunshot wound will create a cardiac injury.”

Dr. Morse of Emory University and Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, and his associates recently published their experience with penetrating cardiac injuries over the past 36 years and documented an increase in the number of cardiac injuries from gunshots over the past 10 years (J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 Jul 6. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001165). They also noted that several of these injuries were caused by penetrating thoracic wounds outside the cardiac box.

The cardiac box is currently defined as the area of the chest overlying the heart, bounded by the midclavicular lines (laterally) and from the clavicles to the tip of the xiphoid. “Surgical teaching dictates that penetrating injuries (i.e. stab wounds and gunshot wounds) in the box have the highest likelihood of cardiac injury and thereby mandate further evaluation,” Dr. Morse said. “These studies, however, are based on small patient sample sizes in which the majority were stab wound victims and underwent minimal statistical scrutiny.”

In what he said is the largest study of its kind, Dr. Morse and his associates conducted a retrospective review of trauma registry data from Grady’s trauma center and autopsy reports to identify patients with penetrating thoracic gunshot wounds and cardiac injury from 2011 to 2013 and to evaluate the relationship between penetrating injuries and the likelihood of a cardiac injury. Using a circumferential grid system around the thorax, the researchers employed logistic regression analysis to compare differences in rates of cardiac injury from entrance/exit wounds in the cardiac box, versus outside the box. They repeated the process to identify potential regions that yield improved predictions for cardiac injury over the current definition of the cardiac box.

Over the 3-year study period, 263 patients sustained 735 penetrating thoracic wounds, of which 80% were gunshot wounds (GSWs). Most of the patients were males (89%) with a median of two injuries each. After stab wounds were excluded, 277 GSWs to the thorax were included for study and 95 (34%) injured the heart. Of the 233 GSWs entering the cardiac box, 30% caused cardiac injury while, of the 44 GSWs outside the cardiac box, 32% penetrated the heart, suggesting that the current cardiac box is a poor predictor of cardiac injury relative to the thoracic non–cardiac box regions (OR 1.1; P = .71).

The researchers observed that the regions from the anterior to the posterior midline of the left thorax provided the highest positive predictive value, with a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 31%, making this region the most statistically significant discriminator of cardiac injury (OR, 4.4; P less than .01). This finding was primarily based on the fact that gunshots to the left lateral chest (an area not currently included in the box) had a high rate of cardiac injury (41%; OR, 1.4).

“The current cardiac box is unable to discriminate between gunshot wounds that will cause a cardiac injury and those that will not,” Dr. Morse said. “Any gunshot wound to the chest can cause a cardiac injury. While clinically relevant box borders would include the left chest, the bottom line for surgeons is to think outside the current cardiac box.”

The improved cardiac box that he and his associates proposed includes the area from the clavicles to the xiphoid and from the anterior to the posterior midline over the left thorax. “While this may be intuitive, it is not what we as surgeons have been teaching,” he said. “Finally, gunshots to areas such as the right posterior and posterolateral chest were associated with rates of cardiac injury greater than 30% despite their distance from the heart. This led us to conclude that a gunshot anywhere to the chest should be considered to potentially cause a cardiac injury.”

Dr. Morse acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the study excluded graze wounds and gunshots above the clavicles and below the xiphoid. “However, a small percentage of these did cause cardiac injuries, which emphasizes the point that gunshot wounds from any entrance can cause cardiac injury.”

Invited discussant Nicholas Namias, MD, professor and chief of the division of acute care surgery at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, said that the study by Dr. Morse and his associates “confirms what Dr. [Grace] Rozycki showed 20 years ago: Forget the [cardiac] box; it’s dead. Just throw an ultrasound probe on.”

Dr. Morse reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HI. – For gunshot wounds, the current “cardiac box” was the poorest predictor of cardiac injury, results from a single-center retrospective study demonstrated.

“We determined that, from a statistical standpoint, the cardiac box should be redefined to include the area of the thorax that extends from the clavicle to xiphoid and from the anterior midline to the posterior midline of the left thorax,” Bryan C. Morse, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “The classic cardiac box is inadequate to discriminate whether a gunshot wound will create a cardiac injury.”

Dr. Morse of Emory University and Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, and his associates recently published their experience with penetrating cardiac injuries over the past 36 years and documented an increase in the number of cardiac injuries from gunshots over the past 10 years (J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 Jul 6. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001165). They also noted that several of these injuries were caused by penetrating thoracic wounds outside the cardiac box.

The cardiac box is currently defined as the area of the chest overlying the heart, bounded by the midclavicular lines (laterally) and from the clavicles to the tip of the xiphoid. “Surgical teaching dictates that penetrating injuries (i.e. stab wounds and gunshot wounds) in the box have the highest likelihood of cardiac injury and thereby mandate further evaluation,” Dr. Morse said. “These studies, however, are based on small patient sample sizes in which the majority were stab wound victims and underwent minimal statistical scrutiny.”

In what he said is the largest study of its kind, Dr. Morse and his associates conducted a retrospective review of trauma registry data from Grady’s trauma center and autopsy reports to identify patients with penetrating thoracic gunshot wounds and cardiac injury from 2011 to 2013 and to evaluate the relationship between penetrating injuries and the likelihood of a cardiac injury. Using a circumferential grid system around the thorax, the researchers employed logistic regression analysis to compare differences in rates of cardiac injury from entrance/exit wounds in the cardiac box, versus outside the box. They repeated the process to identify potential regions that yield improved predictions for cardiac injury over the current definition of the cardiac box.

Over the 3-year study period, 263 patients sustained 735 penetrating thoracic wounds, of which 80% were gunshot wounds (GSWs). Most of the patients were males (89%) with a median of two injuries each. After stab wounds were excluded, 277 GSWs to the thorax were included for study and 95 (34%) injured the heart. Of the 233 GSWs entering the cardiac box, 30% caused cardiac injury while, of the 44 GSWs outside the cardiac box, 32% penetrated the heart, suggesting that the current cardiac box is a poor predictor of cardiac injury relative to the thoracic non–cardiac box regions (OR 1.1; P = .71).

The researchers observed that the regions from the anterior to the posterior midline of the left thorax provided the highest positive predictive value, with a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 31%, making this region the most statistically significant discriminator of cardiac injury (OR, 4.4; P less than .01). This finding was primarily based on the fact that gunshots to the left lateral chest (an area not currently included in the box) had a high rate of cardiac injury (41%; OR, 1.4).

“The current cardiac box is unable to discriminate between gunshot wounds that will cause a cardiac injury and those that will not,” Dr. Morse said. “Any gunshot wound to the chest can cause a cardiac injury. While clinically relevant box borders would include the left chest, the bottom line for surgeons is to think outside the current cardiac box.”

The improved cardiac box that he and his associates proposed includes the area from the clavicles to the xiphoid and from the anterior to the posterior midline over the left thorax. “While this may be intuitive, it is not what we as surgeons have been teaching,” he said. “Finally, gunshots to areas such as the right posterior and posterolateral chest were associated with rates of cardiac injury greater than 30% despite their distance from the heart. This led us to conclude that a gunshot anywhere to the chest should be considered to potentially cause a cardiac injury.”

Dr. Morse acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the study excluded graze wounds and gunshots above the clavicles and below the xiphoid. “However, a small percentage of these did cause cardiac injuries, which emphasizes the point that gunshot wounds from any entrance can cause cardiac injury.”

Invited discussant Nicholas Namias, MD, professor and chief of the division of acute care surgery at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, said that the study by Dr. Morse and his associates “confirms what Dr. [Grace] Rozycki showed 20 years ago: Forget the [cardiac] box; it’s dead. Just throw an ultrasound probe on.”

Dr. Morse reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com

WAIKOLOA, HI. – For gunshot wounds, the current “cardiac box” was the poorest predictor of cardiac injury, results from a single-center retrospective study demonstrated.

“We determined that, from a statistical standpoint, the cardiac box should be redefined to include the area of the thorax that extends from the clavicle to xiphoid and from the anterior midline to the posterior midline of the left thorax,” Bryan C. Morse, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. “The classic cardiac box is inadequate to discriminate whether a gunshot wound will create a cardiac injury.”

Dr. Morse of Emory University and Grady Memorial Hospital, Atlanta, and his associates recently published their experience with penetrating cardiac injuries over the past 36 years and documented an increase in the number of cardiac injuries from gunshots over the past 10 years (J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016 Jul 6. doi: 10.1097/TA.0000000000001165). They also noted that several of these injuries were caused by penetrating thoracic wounds outside the cardiac box.

The cardiac box is currently defined as the area of the chest overlying the heart, bounded by the midclavicular lines (laterally) and from the clavicles to the tip of the xiphoid. “Surgical teaching dictates that penetrating injuries (i.e. stab wounds and gunshot wounds) in the box have the highest likelihood of cardiac injury and thereby mandate further evaluation,” Dr. Morse said. “These studies, however, are based on small patient sample sizes in which the majority were stab wound victims and underwent minimal statistical scrutiny.”

In what he said is the largest study of its kind, Dr. Morse and his associates conducted a retrospective review of trauma registry data from Grady’s trauma center and autopsy reports to identify patients with penetrating thoracic gunshot wounds and cardiac injury from 2011 to 2013 and to evaluate the relationship between penetrating injuries and the likelihood of a cardiac injury. Using a circumferential grid system around the thorax, the researchers employed logistic regression analysis to compare differences in rates of cardiac injury from entrance/exit wounds in the cardiac box, versus outside the box. They repeated the process to identify potential regions that yield improved predictions for cardiac injury over the current definition of the cardiac box.

Over the 3-year study period, 263 patients sustained 735 penetrating thoracic wounds, of which 80% were gunshot wounds (GSWs). Most of the patients were males (89%) with a median of two injuries each. After stab wounds were excluded, 277 GSWs to the thorax were included for study and 95 (34%) injured the heart. Of the 233 GSWs entering the cardiac box, 30% caused cardiac injury while, of the 44 GSWs outside the cardiac box, 32% penetrated the heart, suggesting that the current cardiac box is a poor predictor of cardiac injury relative to the thoracic non–cardiac box regions (OR 1.1; P = .71).

The researchers observed that the regions from the anterior to the posterior midline of the left thorax provided the highest positive predictive value, with a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 31%, making this region the most statistically significant discriminator of cardiac injury (OR, 4.4; P less than .01). This finding was primarily based on the fact that gunshots to the left lateral chest (an area not currently included in the box) had a high rate of cardiac injury (41%; OR, 1.4).

“The current cardiac box is unable to discriminate between gunshot wounds that will cause a cardiac injury and those that will not,” Dr. Morse said. “Any gunshot wound to the chest can cause a cardiac injury. While clinically relevant box borders would include the left chest, the bottom line for surgeons is to think outside the current cardiac box.”

The improved cardiac box that he and his associates proposed includes the area from the clavicles to the xiphoid and from the anterior to the posterior midline over the left thorax. “While this may be intuitive, it is not what we as surgeons have been teaching,” he said. “Finally, gunshots to areas such as the right posterior and posterolateral chest were associated with rates of cardiac injury greater than 30% despite their distance from the heart. This led us to conclude that a gunshot anywhere to the chest should be considered to potentially cause a cardiac injury.”

Dr. Morse acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the study excluded graze wounds and gunshots above the clavicles and below the xiphoid. “However, a small percentage of these did cause cardiac injuries, which emphasizes the point that gunshot wounds from any entrance can cause cardiac injury.”

Invited discussant Nicholas Namias, MD, professor and chief of the division of acute care surgery at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, said that the study by Dr. Morse and his associates “confirms what Dr. [Grace] Rozycki showed 20 years ago: Forget the [cardiac] box; it’s dead. Just throw an ultrasound probe on.”

Dr. Morse reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@frontlinemedcom.com