INTRODUCTION:Prehospital tourniquet placement is not a required criterion for standard trauma team activation (TTA-S) as recommended by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Educational campaigns such as STOP THE BLEED have led to an increase in tourniquet applications in the prehospital setting. We intend to evaluate if using extended trauma team activation (TTA-T) criteria, which includes tourniquet application, would lead to an acceptable amount of overtriage. METHODS:This was a multicenter retrospective analysis, utilizing the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Major Extremity Trauma Tourniquet Database, comparing the overtriage rate of TTA-S criteria against the TTA-T criteria. RESULTS:A total of 1235 patients were included, with 687 meeting the TTA-S criteria and an additional 175 patients meeting the TTA-T criteria. The overtriage rate was calculated to be 21.2%, within the accepted over triage rate of 25%-35%. CONCLUSIONS:Field tourniquet application for life-threatening hemorrhage, although not an American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma criterion for TTA, should be considered for full TTA. Utilizing this as a criterion for TTA is associated with an acceptable rate of overtriage, while also having the benefit of rapid surgical team evaluation and intervention for possible life- or limb-threatening injuries.

INTRODUCTION:Hepatic angioembolization is highly effective for hemorrhage control in hemodynamically stable patients with traumatic liver injuries and contrast extravasation. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the specific location of angioembolization within the hepatic arterial vasculature and its implications on patient outcomes. METHODS:A post-hoc analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study across 23 centers was performed. Adult patients undergoing main hepatic artery angioembolization or segmental hepatic artery angioembolization within 8 hours of arrival were included. The primary outcome was liver-related complications, defined as perihepatic fluid collection, bile leak/biloma, pseudoaneurysm, hepatic necrosis, and/or hepatic abscess. Secondary outcomes were liver-related complication interventions, length of stay, and mortality. RESULTS:A total of 55 patients underwent hepatic angioembolization, with 23 (41.8%) undergoing main hepatic artery angioembolization and 32 (58.2%) receiving segmental hepatic artery angioembolization. Both groups were comparable in age, vitals, mechanism of injury, liver injury grade distribution, and injury severity score (all P > .05). The main hepatic artery angioembolization group had greater rates of overall liver-related complications (65.2% vs 31.2%, P = .039), specifically perihepatic fluid collection (26.1% vs 6.3%, P = .040) and bile-leak/biloma (34.8% vs 12.5%, P = .048). Main hepatic artery angioembolization had greater rates of 2 or more liver-related complications (47.8% vs 9.4%, P = .001) and readmission within 30 days (30.4% vs 9.4%, P = .046). No significant differences were observed in hospital length of stay and mortality (all P > .05). CONCLUSIONS:Main hepatic artery angioembolization is associated with increased rates of liver-related complications, multiple liver-related complications, and readmission within 30 days compared with segmental hepatic artery angioembolization. Thus, main hepatic artery angioembolization should be reserved for use only when segmental hepatic artery angioembolization is not feasible, albeit with significantly increased morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies evaluating observation versus angioembolization (AE) for blunt liver injuries (BLT) with contrast extravasation (CE) on computed tomography imaging have yielded inconsistent conclusions, primarily due to limitations in single-center and/or retrospective study design. Therefore, this multicenter study aims to compare an observation versus AE-first approach for BLT, hypothesizing decreased liver-related complications (LRCs) with observation. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of a multicenter, prospective observational study (2019-2021) across 23 centers. Adult patients with BLT + CE undergoing observation or AE within 8 hours of arrival were included. The primary outcome was LRCs, defined as perihepatic fluid collection, bile leak/biloma, pseudoaneurysm, hepatic necrosis, and/or hepatic abscess. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate risk factors associated with LRCs. RESULTS: From 128 patients presenting with BLT + CE on imaging, 71 (55.5%) underwent observation-first and 57 (45.5%) AE-first management. Both groups were comparable in age, vitals, mechanism of injury, and shock index (all p > 0.05), however the AE group had increased frequency of American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Grade IV injuries (51.0% vs. 22.0%, p = 0.002). The AE cohort demonstrated increased rates of in-hospital LRCs (36.8% vs. 12.7%, p = 0.038), emergency department representation (25.0% vs. 10.0%, p = 0.025), and hospital readmission for LRCs (12.3% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.012). However, the two cohorts had similar mortality rates (5.7% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.912). After adjusting for age, ISS, and grade of liver injury, an AE-first approach had a similar associated risk of LRCs compared with observation-first management (odds ratio, 1.949; 95% confidence interval, 0.673-5.643; p = 0.219). CONCLUSION: Patients with blunt liver injury and CE undergoing an observation-first approach were associated with a similar adjusted risk of LRCs and rate of mortality compared with AE-first approach. Overall, this calls for reevaluation of the role of routine AE in blunt liver trauma patients with CE. Future prospective randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

BACKGROUND Although several risk indices have been developed to aid in the diagnosis of necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs), these instruments suffer from varying levels of reproducibility and failure to incorporate key clinical variables in model development. The objective of this study was to derive and validate a clinical risk index score, NECROSIS, for identifying NSTIs in emergency general surgery (EGS) patients being evaluated for severe skin and soft tissue infections. METHODS We performed a prospective study across 16 sites in the United States of adult EGS patients with suspected NSTIs over a 30-month period. Variables analyzed included demographics, admission vitals and laboratories, physical examination, radiographic, and operative findings. The main outcome measure was the presence of NSTI diagnosed clinically at the time of surgery. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify independent predictors for the presence of NSTI using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and the Akaike information criteria. RESULTS Of 362 patients, 297 (82%) were diagnosed with an NSTI. Overall mortality was 12.3%. Multivariate analysis identified three independent predictors for NSTI: systolic blood pressure of ≤120 mm Hg, violaceous skin, and white blood cell count of ≥15 × 103/μL. Multivariate modeling demonstrated Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness of fit (p = 0.9) with a c statistic for the prediction curve of 0.75. Test characteristics of the NECROSIS score were similar between the derivation and validation cohorts. CONCLUSION NECROSIS is a simple and potentially useful clinical index score for identifying at-risk EGS patients with NSTIs. Future validation studies are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level III.

INTRODUCTION:This study aimed to assess perioperative bleeding complications and in-hospital mortality in patients requiring emergency general surgery presenting with a history of antiplatelet (AP) versus direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) versus warfarin use. METHODS:A prospective observational study across 21 centers between 2019 and 2022 was conducted. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older, and DOAC, warfarin, or AP use within 24 hours of an emergency general surgery procedure. Outcomes included perioperative bleeding and in-hospital mortality. The study was conducted using analysis of variance, χ 2 , and multivariable regression models. RESULTS:Of the 413 patients, 221 (53.5%) reported AP use, 152 (36.8%) DOAC use, and 40 (9.7%) warfarin use. The most common indications for surgery were obstruction (23% [AP], 45% [DOAC], and 28% [warfarin]), intestinal ischemia (13%, 17%, and 23%), and diverticulitis/peptic ulcers (7%, 7%, and 15%). Compared with DOAC use, warfarin use was associated with significantly higher perioperative bleeding complication (odds ratio [OR], 4.4 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0-9.9]). There was no significant difference in perioperative bleeding complication between DOAC and AP use (OR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.4-1.1]). Compared with DOAC use, there was no significant difference in mortality between warfarin use (OR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.2-2.5]) or AP use (OR, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.2-1.2]). After adjusting for confounders, warfarin use (OR, 6.3 [95% CI, 2.8-13.9]), medical history, and operative indication were associated with an increase in perioperative bleeding complications. However, warfarin was not independently associated with risk of mortality (OR, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.39-4.7]), whereas intraoperative vasopressor use (OR, 4.7 [95% CI, 1.7-12.8]), medical history, and postoperative bleeding (OR, 5.5 [95% CI, 2.4-12.8]) were. CONCLUSION:Despite ongoing concerns about the increase in DOAC use and lack of readily available reversal agents, this study suggests that warfarin, rather than DOACs, is associated with higher perioperative bleeding complications. However, that risk does not result in an increase in mortality, suggesting that perioperative decisions should be dictated by patient disease and comorbidities rather than type of AP or anticoagulant use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

BACKGROUND:High-grade liver injuries with extravasation (HGLI ​+ ​Extrav) are associated with morbidity/mortality. For low-grade injuries, an observation (OBS) first-strategy is beneficial over initial angiography (IR), however, it is unclear if OBS is safe for HGLI ​+ ​Extrav. Therefore, we evaluated the management of HGLI ​+ ​Extrav patients, hypothesizing IR patients will have decreased rates of operation and mortality. METHODS:HGLI ​+ ​Extrav patients managed with initial OBS or IR were included. The primary outcome was need for operation. Secondary outcomes included liver-related complications (LRCs) and mortality. RESULTS:From 59 patients, 23 (39.0%) were managed with OBS and 36 (61.0%) with IR. 75% of IR patients underwent angioembolization, whereas 13% of OBS patients underwent any IR, all undergoing angioembolization. IR patients had an increased rate of operation (13.9% vs. 0%, p ​= ​0.049), but no difference in LRCs (44.4% vs. 43.5%) or mortality (5.6% vs. 8.7%) versus OBS patients (both p ​> ​0.05). CONCLUSION:Over 60% of patients were managed with IR initially. IR patients had an increased rate of operation yet similar rates of LRCs and mortality, suggesting initial OBS reasonable in appropriately selected HGLI ​+ ​Extrav patients.

This important Western Trauma multicenter study found minimal benefit from embolization of liver injuries following the finding of blush on CT. Embolization carried a higher rate of complications with more drain placements and longer LOS. INTRODUCTION The management of liver injuries in hemodynamically stable patients is variable and includes primary treatment strategies of observation (OBS), angiography (interventional radiology [IR]) with angioembolization (AE), or operative intervention (OR). We aimed to evaluate the management of patients with liver injuries with active extravasation on computed tomography (CT) imaging, hypothesizing that AE will have more complications without improving outcomes compared with OBS. METHODS This is a prospective, multicenter, observational study. Patients who underwent CT within 2 hours after arrival with extravasation (e.g., blush) on imaging were included. Exclusion criteria included cirrhosis, nontraumatic hemorrhage, transfers from outside facilities, and pregnancy. No hemodynamic exclusion criteria were used. The primary outcome was liver-specific complications. Secondary outcomes include length of stay and mortality. Angioembolization patients were compared with patients treated without AE. Propensity score matching was used to match based on penetrating mechanism, liver injury severity, arrival vital signs, and early transfusion. RESULTS Twenty-three centers enrolled 192 patients. Forty percent of patients (n = 77) were initially OBS. Eleven OBS patients (14%) failed nonoperative management and went to IR or OR. Sixty-one patients (32%) were managed with IR, and 42 (69%) of these had AE as an initial intervention. Fifty-four patients (28%) went to OR+/− IR. After propensity score matching (n = 34 per group), there was no difference in baseline characteristics between AE and OBS. The AE group experienced more complications with a higher rate of IR-placed drains for abscess or biloma (22% vs. 0%, p = 0.01) and an increased overall length of stay (p = 0.01). No difference was noted in transfusions or mortality. CONCLUSION Observation is highly effective with few requiring additional interventions. Angioembolization was associated with higher rate of secondary drain placement for abscesses or biloma. Given this, a trial of OBS and avoidance of empiric AE may be warranted in hemodynamically stable, liver-injured patient with extravasation on CT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

BACKGROUND:While direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use is increasing in the Emergency General Surgery (EGS) patient population, our understanding of their bleeding risk in the acute setting remains limited. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of perioperative bleeding complications in patients using DOACs versus warfarin and AP therapy requiring urgent/emergent EGS procedures (EGSPs).METHODS:This was a prospective observational trial, conducted between 2019 and 2022, across 21 centers. Inclusion criteria were 18 years or older, DOAC, warfarin/AP use within 24 hours of requiring an urgent/emergent EGSP. Demographics, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected. ANOVA, χ 2 , and multivariable regression models were used to conduct the analysis.RESULTS:Of the 413 patients enrolled in the study, 261 (63%) reported warfarin/AP use and 152 (37%) reported DOAC use. Appendicitis and cholecystitis were the most frequent indication for operative intervention in the warfarin/AP group (43.4% vs. 25%, p = 0.001). Small bowel obstruction/abdominal wall hernias were the main indication for operative intervention in the DOAC group (44.7% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.001). Intraoperative, postoperative, and perioperative bleeding complications and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups. After adjusting for confounders, a history of chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; p = 0.015) and indication for operative intervention including occlusive mesenteric ischemia (OR, 4.27; p = 0.016), nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia (OR, 3.13; p = 0.001), and diverticulitis (OR, 3.72; p = 0.019) were associated with increased perioperative bleeding complications. The need for an intraoperative transfusion (OR, 4.87; p < 0.001), and intraoperative vasopressors (OR, 4.35; p = 0.003) were associated with increased in-hospital mortality.CONCLUSION:Perioperative bleeding complications and mortality are impacted by the indication for EGSPs and patient's severity of illness rather than a history of DOAC or warfarin/AP use. Therefore, perioperative management should be guided by patient physiology and indication for surgery rather than the concern for recent antiplatelet or anticoagulant use.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

Diagnostic laparoscopy is most often performed in the operating room (OR) but may also be utilized at the bedside, in the emergency room (ER), or in the intensive care unit (ICU). Bedside laparoscopy is helpful for patients who cannot be reliably examined, including those who are intubated, sedated, obtunded, or demented. Potential benefits include the ability to safely and quickly rule in/out pathology in a patient who is not a candidate for transfer to radiology or the OR. For patients who are not suitable for transfer to diagnostic radiology, laparoscopy is a safe and effective way to obtain diagnostic clarity in patients with possible intra-abdominal pathology and avoids the morbidity of a nontherapeutic laparotomy (Bender and Talamini, Surg Endosc, 6(6):302–4, 1992; Brandt et al., Surg Endosc, 7(3):168–72, 1993). Diagnostic laparoscopy is most often performed in the OR but may also be utilized bedside in the ER or the ICU.

Background The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) has developed a grading system for emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions. We sought to validate the AAST EGS grades for patients undergoing urgent/emergent colorectal resection. Methods Patients enrolled in the “Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Colorectal Resection in EGS—to anastomose or not to anastomose” study undergoing urgent/emergent surgery for obstruction, ischemia, or diverticulitis were included. Baseline demographics, comorbidity severity as defined by Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), procedure type, and AAST grade were prospectively collected. Outcomes included length of stay (LOS) in-hospital mortality, and surgical complications (superficial/deep/organ-space surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, stoma complication, fascial dehiscence, and need for further intervention). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to describe outcomes and risk factors for surgical complication or mortality. Results There were 367 patients, with a mean (± SD) age of 62 ± 15 years. 39% were women. The median interquartile range (IQR) CCI was 4 (2-6). Overall, the pathologies encompassed the following AAST EGS grades: I (17, 5%), II (54, 15%), III (115, 31%), IV (95, 26%), and V (86, 23%). Management included laparoscopic (24, 7%), open (319, 87%), and laparoscopy converted to laparotomy (24, 6%). Higher AAST grade was associated with laparotomy (P = .01). The median LOS was 13 days (8-22). At least 1 surgical complication occurred in 33% of patients and the mortality rate was 14%. Development of at least 1 surgical complication, need for unplanned intervention, mortality, and increased LOS were associated with increasing AAST severity grade. On multivariable analysis, factors predictive of in-hospital mortality included AAST organ grade, CCI, and preoperative vasopressor use (odds ratio (OR) 1.9, 1.6, 3.1, respectively). The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma emergency general surgery grade was also associated with the development of at least 1 surgical complication (OR 2.5), while CCI, preoperative vasopressor use, respiratory failure, and pneumoperitoneum were not. Conclusion The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma emergency general surgery grading systems display construct validity for mortality and surgical complications after urgent/emergent colorectal resection. These results support incorporation of AAST EGS grades for quality benchmarking and surgical outcomes research.

Background: The vascular surgery workforce is in jeopardy with the current and increasing shortages. This study explores target populations for recruitment and aims to identify potential modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors associated with reduced job satisfaction among prac-ticing vascular surgeons to improve retention and prevent early retirement.Methods: A cross-sectional national survey of surgeons (n = 1,043) was conducted from September 2016 to May 2017. Data included, demographic and occupational characteristics, as well as psychological, work-life balance, work-environment, and job-satisfaction variables. Surgeons were grouped into general surgery (n = 507), obstetrics and gynecology (n = 272), surgical subspecialties (n = 212), and vascular surgery (n = 52). Vascular surgeons were reca-tegorized as more satisfied and less satisfied, and potential risk factors for job dissatisfaction were identified.Results: As compared with general surgeons, obstetrics and gynecology, as well as other sur-gical subspecialties, vascular surgery tended to be male-dominated with higher rates of non-white, minority groups (P < 0.05). Less vascular surgery respondents were found in the Midwest (P < 0.001). Vascular surgeons worked more hours on average than other surgical fields and were less satisfied with work (P < 0.05). Potential job dissatisfaction risk factors among vascular surgeons include: unhealthy work-life balance, poor camaraderie/coworker dissatisfaction, insuf-ficient hospital support, hostile hospital culture, discontent with supervision, minimal patient di-versity, dissatisfaction with work in general, and unhappiness with career choice (P < 0.05).Conclusions: Recruiting new vascular surgery trainees while simultaneously preventing early retirement and attrition is critical to combatting the current workforce crisis. Potential interven-tions include (1) re-branding of the field with prioritization of work-life balance, (2) increasing hos-pital administration's support, (3) creating a collaborative work environment, and (4) facilitating personal accomplishment in work.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vascular microthrombi are a proposed mechanism of COVID19 respiratory failure. We hypothesized that early administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) followed by therapeutic heparin would improve pulmonary function in these patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does tPA improve pulmonary function in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure, and is it safe? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Adults with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure were randomized from May14, 2020 through March 3, 2021, in two phases. Phase 1 (n = 36) comprised a control group (standard-of-care treatment) vs a tPA bolus (50-mg tPA IV bolus followed by 7 days of heparin; goal activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT], 60-80 s) group. Phase 2 (n = 14) comprised a control group vs a tPA drip (50-mg tPA IV bolus, followed by tPA drip 2 mg/h plus heparin 500 units/h over 24 h, then heparin to maintain aPTT of 60-80 s for 7 days) group. Patients were excluded from enrollment if they had not undergone a neurologic examination or cross-sectional brain imaging within the previous 4.5 h to rule out stroke and potential for hemorrhagic conversion. The primary outcome was PaO2 to FIO2 ratio improvement from baseline at 48 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included PaO2 to FIO2 ratio improvement of > 50% or PaO2 to FIO2 ratio of >= 200 at 48 h (composite outcome), ventilator-free days (VFD), and mortality. RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomized: 17 in the control group and 19 in the tPA bolus group in phase 1 and eight in the control group and six in the tPA drip group in phase 2. No severe bleeding events occurred. In the tPA bolus group, the PaO2 to FIO2 ratio values were significantly (P<.017) higher than baseline at 6 through 168 h after randomization; the control group showed no significant improvements. Among patients receiving a tPA bolus, the percent change of PaO2 to FIO2 ratio at 48 h (16.9% control [interquartile range (IQR), -8.3% to 36.8%] vs 29.8% tPA bolus [IQR, 4.5%-88.7%]; P=.11), the composite outcome (11.8% vs 47.4%; P=.03), VFD (0.0 [IQR, 0.0-9.0] vs 12.0 [IQR, 0.0-19.0]; P=.11), and in-hospital mortality (41.2% vs 21.1%; P=.19) did not reach statistically significant differences when compared with those of control participants. The patients who received a tPA drip did not experience benefit. INTERPRETATION: The combination of tPA bolus plus heparin is safe in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure. A phase 3 study is warranted given the improvements in oxygenation and promising observations in VFD and mortality.

Pulmonary vascular microthrombi are a proposed mechanism of COVID-19 respiratory failure. We hypothesized that early administration of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) followed by therapeutic heparin would improve pulmonary function in these patients.Does tPA improve pulmonary function in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure, and is it safe?Adults with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure were randomized from May14, 2020 through March 3, 2021, in two phases. Phase 1 (n = 36) comprised a control group (standard-of-care treatment) vs a tPA bolus (50-mg tPA IV bolus followed by 7 days of heparin; goal activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT], 60-80 s) group. Phase 2 (n = 14) comprised a control group vs a tPA drip (50-mg tPA IV bolus, followed by tPA drip 2 mg/h plus heparin 500 units/h over 24 h, then heparin to maintain aPTT of 60-80 s for 7 days) group. Patients were excluded from enrollment if they had not undergone a neurologic examination or cross-sectional brain imaging within the previous 4.5 h to rule out stroke and potential for hemorrhagic conversion. The primary outcome was Pao2 to Fio2 ratio improvement from baseline at 48 h after randomization. Secondary outcomes included Pao2 to Fio2 ratio improvement of > 50% or Pao2 to Fio2 ratio of ≥ 200 at 48 h (composite outcome), ventilator-free days (VFD), and mortality.Fifty patients were randomized: 17 in the control group and 19 in the tPA bolus group in phase 1 and eight in the control group and six in the tPA drip group in phase 2. No severe bleeding events occurred. In the tPA bolus group, the Pao2 to Fio2 ratio values were significantly (P < .017) higher than baseline at 6 through 168 h after randomization; the control group showed no significant improvements. Among patients receiving a tPA bolus, the percent change of Pao2 to Fio2 ratio at 48 h (16.9% control [interquartile range (IQR), -8.3% to 36.8%] vs 29.8% tPA bolus [IQR, 4.5%-88.7%]; P = .11), the composite outcome (11.8% vs 47.4%; P = .03), VFD (0.0 [IQR, 0.0-9.0] vs 12.0 [IQR, 0.0-19.0]; P = .11), and in-hospital mortality (41.2% vs 21.1%; P = .19) did not reach statistically significant differences when compared with those of control participants. The patients who received a tPA drip did not experience benefit.The combination of tPA bolus plus heparin is safe in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure. A phase 3 study is warranted given the improvements in oxygenation and promising observations in VFD and mortality.ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04357730; URL: www.gov.

BACKGROUND:Tourniquet use for extremity hemorrhage control has seen a recent increase in civilian usage. Previous retrospective studies demonstrated that tourniquets improve outcomes for major extremity trauma (MET). No prospective study has been conducted to date. The objective of this study was to evaluate outcomes in MET patients with prehospital tourniquet use. We hypothesized that prehospital tourniquet use in MET decreases the incidence of patients arriving to the trauma center in shock.METHODS:Data were collected prospectively for adult patients with MET at 26 Level I and 3 Level II trauma centers from 2015 to 2020. Limbs with tourniquets applied in the prehospital setting were included in the tourniquet group and limbs without prehospital tourniquets were enrolled in the control group.RESULTS:A total of 1,392 injured limbs were enrolled with 1,130 tourniquets, including 962 prehospital tourniquets. The control group consisted of 262 limbs without prehospital tourniquets and 88 with tourniquets placed upon hospital arrival. Prehospital improvised tourniquets were placed in 42 patients. Tourniquets effectively controlled bleeding in 87.7% of limbs. Tourniquet and control groups were similarly matched for demographics, Injury Severity Score, and prehospital vital signs (p > 0.05). Despite higher limb injury severity, patients in the tourniquet group were less likely to arrive in shock compared with the control group (13.0% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.04). The incidence of limb complications was not significantly higher in the tourniquet group (p > 0.05).CONCLUSION:This study is the first prospective analysis of prehospital tourniquet use for civilian extremity trauma. Prehospital tourniquet application was associated with decreased incidence of arrival in shock without increasing limb complications. We found widespread tourniquet use, high effectiveness, and a low number of improvised tourniquets. This study provides further evidence that tourniquets are being widely and safely adopted to improve outcomes in civilians with MET.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Background Trauma is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. Early detection of life-threatening injuries leads to improved survival. Computed tomography (CT) scanning has become the modality of choice for early detection of injuries in the stable patient. Some studies have associated selective imaging (Selective-CT) with equivalent outcomes compared to whole body imaging (Pan-CT) with lower costs and radiation exposure. Within the geriatric population, however, the utility of Pan-CT remains controversial. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine if a difference exists between Selective-CT and Pan-CT imaging in the geriatric trauma patient. Methods A retrospective analysis of Level 3 (G60) trauma activations presenting to our urban Level I trauma center between June 2016 and June 2019 was performed. Pan-CT was defined by ICD-10 codes indicating a head, cervical spine, chest, abdomen, and pelvis CT series. Patients with missing images and those who were transferred from other institutions were excluded. Logistic regression controlling for age, gender, injury type, severity, and Glasgow Coma Score was performed. Results A total of 1014 patients met inclusion criteria. Of these, 30.9% underwent Pan-CT (n = 314), 48.9% had Selective-CT (n = 497), and 20.2% received no CT imaging (n = 203). After logistic regression, no clinically significant variations in emergency department length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, ICU LOS, ventilator days, discharge disposition, missed injury rate, or mortality rate were observed between imaging strategies. Conclusions Pan-CT provides no clinically significant advantage over Selective-CT in the geriatric trauma patient.

BACKGROUND: Vascular surgery fellowship applications among general surgery residents have declined. Given this steady downward trend in vascular applicants in conjunction with a predicted critical shortage of vascular surgeons, a call to action for increased recruitment is needed. To improve recruitment efforts, a subgroup analysis of general surgery residents was performed to explore factors that influence interest in vascular surgery. METHODS: A cross-sectional national survey of residents (n = 467) was conducted from September 2016 to May 2017. In addition to collection of demographic and occupational characteristics, assessment of psychological, work-life balance, and job-satisfaction variables were obtained. Residents were grouped based on their interest in pursuing a fellowship. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact test was performed to determine significant variables. RESULTS: Residents were grouped into "interest in non vascular fellowship" (n = 350), "interest in vascular fellowship" (n = 21), and "not interested in fellowship" (n = 96). Significant variables between the groups included age, geographic location, residency size, and type of institution (p < 0.05). Those interested in vascular surgery tended to be older. Residents not interested in fellowship were more commonly located in the Midwest and at smaller, community residencies. No significant difference was found between mental wellness and work-life balance variables. Those residents interested in a vascular surgery fellowship were more dissatisfied with their current salary as compared to other residents (p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: There is a predicted critical shortage in the vascular surgery workforce making recruitment of the best and brightest residents into the specialty vital to its future. In order to invigorate and broaden our group of vascular surgeons, focused recruitment of younger, Midwest, general surgery residents at smaller, community programs may provide the most yield. Publicizing the strengths of a vascular surgery career including the diversity of patients, continuity of care, proficiency in technical skill, and higher monetary rewards should be emphasized in recruiting these target populations. (C) 2021 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background: This study aims to compare PTSD prevalence between seven medical specialties and to identify potential risk factors for PTSD. Methods: A cross-sectional national survey of attending physicians (n = 2216) was conducted and screened for PTSD using the Primary Care PTSD Screen. Stepwise multivariable regression analysis with backward elimination identified potential risk factors. Results: Overall prevalence of PTSD was 14% and ranged from 7% to 18% for psychiatrists and OBGYNs, respectively (p = 0.004). Six potential risk factors for PTSD included: emotional exhaustion, job dissatisfaction, lack of autonomy, working >60 h per week, poor camaraderie, and female gender (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The prevalence of PTSD in attending physicians is more than double that of the general population. Higher risk specialties include OBGYN and general surgery. Specialty-specific interventions targeted at reducing physician burnout and improving the physician work-environment are needed to improve physician wellness and reduce PTSD. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background: Pulmonary vascular microthrombi have been proposed as a mechanism of COVID19 respiratory failure. We hypothesized that early administration of tissue-plasminogen activator(tPA) followed by therapeutic heparin would improve pulmonary function in these patients.Methods: Adults with COVID-19-induced respiratory failure were randomized May14, 2020-March 3, 2021 in two phases: Phase-1(n=36): control (standard-of-care) vs tPA-Bolus (50mg tPA IV-bolus followed by 7 days of heparin (goal aPTT=60-80s); Phase-2(n=14): control vs tPA-Drip (50 mg of tPA IV-bolus, followed by tPA drip 2mg/hr plus heparin 500U/hour over 24 hours, then heparin to maintain aPTT 60-80s/7 days). The primary outcome was PaO2/FiO2 improvement at 48 hours post-randomization. Secondary outcomes included: PaO2/FiO2 improvement>50% or PaO2/FiO2>=200 at 48hrs(COMPOSITE), ventilator-free days(VFD) and mortality.Findings: Fifty patients were randomized: Phase 1:17 control, 19 tPA-Bolus; Phase 2: 8 control, 6 tPA-Drip. There were no severe bleeding events in intervention groups. In tPA-Bolus patients, PaO2/FiO2 was significantly(p<0.017) higher than baseline at 6 through 168 hours post-randomization; controls experienced no significant improvements. Compared to controls, tPA-Bolus patients showed larger, but non-significant, improvements in PaO2/FiO2 at 48hours[16.9%(-8.3–36.8) vs 29.8%(4.5–88.7),p=0.11], resulting in more patients reaching the COMPOSITE outcome (11.8% vs 47.4%,p=0.03). Controls had less VFD[0.0(0.0–9.0) vs 12.0(0.0–19.0),p=0.11] and higher mortality(41.2% vs 21.1%,p=0.19) than tPA-Bolus patients, although not significantly. tPA-Drip patients did not experience benefit compared to simultaneously enrolled controls.Interpretation: The combination tPA-Bolus+heparin is safe in severe COVID-19 respiratory failure. A Phase 3 study is warranted given promising improvements in oxygenation, VFD, and mortality.Trial Registration: The trial was performed according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational New Drug regulations (IND 149634) and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04357730).Funding: This investigator-initiated trial (NCT04357730) was funded by Genentech, Inc.Declaration of Interests: CDB, HBM, EEM, and MBY have patents pending related to both coagulation/fibrinolysis diagnostics and therapeutic fibrinolytics, and are passive co-founders and holds stock options in Thrombo Therapeutics, Inc. HBM and EEM have received grant support from Haemonetics and Instrumentation Laboratories. MBY has previously received a gift of Alteplase (tPA) from Genentech, and owns stock options as a co-founder of Merrimack Pharmaceuticals. CDB, HBM, EEM, JW, NH, DST, AS, and MBY have received research grant funding from Genentech. JW receives consulting fees from Camurus A. B.. All other authors have nothing to disclose.Ethics Approval Statement: All participating trial sites had study approval and oversight from their respective Institutional Review Boards. Due to the nature of the study, which enrolled critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation, informed consent for trial participation was obtained from each patient's Legally Authorized Representative. An independent Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) oversaw the safety of the trial with mandatory reviews at each interim analysis and for all suspected serious adverse events. Data were stored in a REDCap instrument sponsored by NIH/NCATS Colorado CTSA Grant Number UL1 TR002535.

Tilva, Keval R. MD; Christian, Nicole MD; Travis, Claire MBA; Truitt, Michael S. MD, FACS; Shames, Brian D. MD, FACS Author Information

•Trauma care is expensive, and although it provides value and saves lives for critically injured patients, the cost of primary overtriage (minimally injured patients taken from the scene to the emergency department with involvement of the trauma team in the emergency department) is unknown.•This study demonstrated that hospital costs increased from $12 080 to $16 611 and that hospital charges increased from $52 142 to $78 323 when the trauma service was involved in the care of the minimally injured patient.•There was no difference in complications or hospital length of stay in matched cohorts of minimally injured patients whether the trauma service was involved or not. Identifying better means of triage to avoid trauma service care in those who do not need it may improve value.