Impact of easing COVID-19 safety measures on trauma computed tomography imaging volumes
Sriram RaoJustin Glavis‐BloomDavid KakishKaren Tran-HardingDaniel ChowMichael NguyentatEric O. YeatesJeffry NahmiasRoozbeh Houshyar
2
Citation
30
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to substantial disruptions in healthcare staffing and operations. Stay-at-home (SAH) orders and limitations in social gathering implemented in spring 2020 were followed by initial decreases in healthcare and imaging utilization. This study aims to evaluate the impact of subsequent easing of SAH on trauma volumes, demand for, and turnaround times for trauma computed tomography (CT) exams, hypothesizing that after initial decreases, trauma volumes have increased as COVID safety measures have been reduced.Patient characteristics, CT imaging volumes, and turnaround time were analyzed for all adult activated emergency department trauma patients requiring CT imaging at a single Level-I trauma center (1/2018-2/2022) located in the sixth most populous county in the USA. Based on COVID safety measures in place in the state of California, three time periods were compared: baseline (PRE, 1/1/2018-3/19/2020), COVID safety measures (COVID, 3/20/2020-1/25/2021), and POST (1/26/2021-2/28/2022).There were 16,984 trauma patients across the study (PRE = 8289, COVID = 3139, POST = 5556). The average daily trauma patient volumes increased significantly in the POST period compared to the PRE and COVID periods (13.9 vs. 10.3 vs. 10.1, p < 0.001), with increases in both blunt (p < 0.001) and penetrating (p = 0.002) trauma. The average daily number of trauma CT examinations performed increased significantly in the POST period compared to the PRE and COVID periods (56.7 vs. 48.3 vs. 47.6, p < 0.001), with significant increases in average turnaround time (47 min vs. 31 and 37, p < 0.001).After initial decreases in trauma radiology volumes following stay-at-home orders, subsequent easing of safety measures has coincided with increases in trauma imaging volumes above pre-pandemic levels and longer exam turnaround times.Keywords:
Trauma Center
Staffing
Penetrating Trauma
Blunt trauma
Pandemic
Trauma Center
Penetrating Trauma
Revised Trauma Score
Blunt trauma
Major trauma
Cite
Citations (141)
We report our 10-year experience with traumatic peripheral arterial injury repair at an urban level I trauma center.Between January 2007 and December 2016, 28 adult trauma patients presented with traumatic peripheral arterial injuries. Data were retrospectively collected on demographic characteristics, the mechanism of injury, the type of vascular injury, and physiological status on initial assessment. The analysis also included the Mangled Extremity Severity Score (MESS), Injury Severity Score, surgical procedures, and outcome variables including limb salvage, hospital stay, intensive care unit stay, and postoperative vascular complications.Four (14.3%) patients required amputation due to failed revascularization. MESS significantly differed between patients with blunt and penetrating trauma (8.2±2.2 vs. 5.8±1.3, respectively; p=0.005). The amputation rate was not significantly different between patients with blunt and penetrating trauma (20% vs. 0%, respectively; p=0.295). The overall mortality rate was 3.6% (1 patient).Blunt trauma was associated with higher MESS than penetrating trauma, and amputation was more frequent. In particular, patients with blunt trauma had significantly higher MESS than patients with penetrating trauma (8.2±2.2 vs. 5.8±1.3, respectively; p=0.005), and amputation was performed when revascularization failed in cases of blunt trauma of the lower extremity. Therefore, particular care is needed in making treatment decisions for patients with peripheral arterial injuries caused by blunt trauma.
Penetrating Trauma
Blunt trauma
Trauma Center
Cite
Citations (7)
Trauma Center
Blunt trauma
Penetrating Trauma
Cite
Citations (87)
Commonly accepted dogma is that patients with a long bone fracture due to a penetrating injury (gunshot wound) are less likely to follow up than blunt trauma patients. An institutional trauma database from a Level 1 academic trauma center was utilized to include all patients with long bone fractures from penetrating trauma from 2006-2009 (N = 132). Demographically matched blunt trauma patients with long bone fractures were included as a comparison group (N = 104). The medical records of these 236 patients were reviewed to observe their follow-up at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.736) between the penetrating and blunt trauma patients in terms of their follow-up within 1 year from time of injury. At the 1 year end point 103/132 (78%) of the penetrating group and 83/104 (80%) of the blunt group were lost to follow-up. The results of this study call into question the routine exclusion of penetrating trauma patients from research studies, as well as encourage further research to improve patient retention.
Penetrating Trauma
Blunt trauma
Trauma Center
Medical record
Gunshot wound
Cite
Citations (8)
Trauma Center
Blunt trauma
Penetrating Trauma
Demographics
Cite
Citations (12)
Triage
Penetrating Trauma
Trauma Center
Blunt trauma
Major trauma
Revised Trauma Score
Cite
Citations (6)
Recent studies have suggested improved outcomes in victims of penetrating trauma managed with shorter prehospital times and limited interventions. The purpose of the current study was to perform an outcome analysis of patients transported following penetrating and blunt traumatic injuries.We performed a descriptive retrospective analysis of the 2014 National Emergency Medical Services Information System (NEMSIS) public release research data set for patients presenting after acute traumatic injury.A total of 2,018,141 patient encounters met criteria, of which 3.9% were penetrating trauma. Prehospital cardiac arrest occurred in 0.5% blunt and 4.2% penetrating trauma patients. Emergency department (ED) mortality was higher in penetrating than blunt trauma patients (4.1% vs. 0.8%). Scene times were 18.1 ± 36.5 minutes for blunt and 16.0 ± 45.3 minutes for penetrating trauma. Mean scene time for blunt trauma patients who died in the ED was 24.9 ± 58.0 minutes compared with 18.8 ± 38.5 minutes for those admitted; for penetrating trauma, scene times were 17.9 ± 23.5 and 13.4 ± 11.6 minutes, respectively. Mean number of procedures performed for blunt trauma patients who died in the ED was 6.5 ± 4.3 compared with 3.1 ± 2.3 for those who survived until admission; for penetrating trauma, the numbers of procedures performed were 5.7 ± 3.4 and 2.6 ± 2.0, respectively.Although less frequent than blunt trauma, penetrating trauma is associated with significantly higher prehospital and ED mortality. Increased scene time and number of procedures was associated with greater mortality for both blunt and penetrating trauma. Further study is required to better understand any causal relationships between prehospital times and interventions and patient outcomes.
Penetrating Trauma
Blunt trauma
Trauma Center
Cite
Citations (53)
The implication of splenic contrast blush on computed tomography (CT) in blunt trauma patients and whether it is an indication for angioembolization (AE) remains controversial. Our objective was to determine whether CT blush and its subsequent treatment have any impact on outcomes in blunt trauma patients with low-grade splenic injuries. A retrospective review identified adult patients with splenic injury (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grades 1 to 3) from blunt abdominal trauma who were evaluated with a CT scan over a 3.5-year period at a Level I trauma center. Patient groups analyzed included: observation patients with no CT blush (n = 110), observation patients with CT blush (n = 18), and AE patients with CT blush (n = 22). Patients with CT blush who were observed did not demonstrate significantly worse outcomes compared with the patients with no CT blush. Additionally, patients with CT blush who underwent AE did not show any significant improvement in outcomes compared with patients who were observed with CT blush. Our study suggests that CT blush does not predict worse outcomes for blunt trauma patients with low-grade splenic injury who underwent observation. Furthermore, AE does not seem to provide any advantage to this subset of patients.
Trauma Center
Blunt trauma
Cite
Citations (12)
Blunt trauma
Trauma Center
Penetrating Trauma
Revised Trauma Score
Cite
Citations (12)
Purpose: Despite advances in diagnostic and imaging technologies, the diagnosis of traumatic hollow viscus injury (HVI) remains a great challenge in clinical practice. This study aimed to determine the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis of HVI in emergent blunt trauma patients.Methods: The study was conducted on patients with abdominal trauma who were admitted to our center, regional emergency center, Kyung Hee University Medical Center, between January 2008 and December 2018. The clinical data of patients with abdominal trauma who underwent CT and abdominal surgery within 24 hours of hospitalization were analyzed to determine the diagnostic capacity of CT.Results: In total, 156 patients were included in the study. There were 88 cases of blunt trauma. Among these patients, 27 were diagnosed with HVI using CT, and 38 patients were diagnosed with HVI in the operating room. The median injury severity score for these patients was 10.0, the revised trauma score was 7.841, and the trauma injury severity score was 0.96. The sensitivity and specificity of CT in predicting HVI in these patients were 65.8%, and 96.0%, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were 92.6%, and 78.7%, respectively.Conclusion: In urgent situations, CT findings alone are insufficient for diagnosing HVI. Further research on the HVI diagnostic capacity of CT is required.
Trauma Center
Blunt trauma
Penetrating Trauma
Diagnostic peritoneal lavage
Cite
Citations (3)