User login
M. Alexander Otto began his reporting career early in 1999 covering the pharmaceutical industry for a national pharmacists' magazine and freelancing for the Washington Post and other newspapers. He then joined BNA, now part of Bloomberg News, covering health law and the protection of people and animals in medical research. Alex next worked for the McClatchy Company. Based on his work, Alex won a year-long Knight Science Journalism Fellowship to MIT in 2008-2009. He joined the company shortly thereafter. Alex has a newspaper journalism degree from Syracuse (N.Y.) University and a master's degree in medical science -- a physician assistant degree -- from George Washington University. Alex is based in Seattle.
No survival benefit with prehospital transfusions
SAN ANTONIO – Prehospital blood transfusions during air medical transport did not improve 24-hour or in-hospital mortality at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville.
Investigators there reviewed 5,581 patients transported by helicopter to Vanderbilt from the scene of injury from the period of 2007-2013; they excluded patients who died on the helipad or in the ED. Average flight time was 48 minutes; 231 patients (4%) received prehospital blood transfusions (PBT) of up to two units of O negative packed red blood cells, which is all that the helicopters carried. The decision to transfuse was up to helicopter personnel who were advised to transfuse hemodynamically unstable patients and those who had lost more than a half liter of blood.
Vanderbilt reviewed its data because although PBT has become widespread in air medical transport, results from military and civilian studies are mixed. “A lot of evidence indicates that early, aggressive resuscitation with blood products improves survival once patients arrive at the hospital. It makes sense that starting the process early would improve outcomes, but relatively little is known about the prehospital environment,” said investigator and general surgery resident Dr. Benjamin Miller.
PBT didn’t seem to help at Vanderbilt. On multivariable regression, in-flight transfusion did not improve 24-hour mortality (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.61-2.44) or overall in-hospital mortality (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.55-1.79). It was the same story when 195 transfused patients were matched to 195 who were not transfused, based on mechanism of injury, scene vital signs, injury severity, travel duration, and other measures. Even with matching, PBT did not improve 24-hour mortality (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.54-1.98) or overall mortality (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.56-1.96).
There was a trend for improved 24-hour survival with transfusion when injury severity scores were below 20, but it wasn’t statistically significant, perhaps because few of the less injured patients died.
“Our results show no effect of PBT on 24-hour and overall in-hospital mortality. It’s puzzling to us because it’s counterintuitive to the damage control resuscitation strategy,” Dr. Miller said at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
The findings aren’t robust enough for Vanderbilt to cancel PBT, but they do suggest possible areas for improvement.
Maybe “one or two units of blood are not enough for patients who are severely injured and rapidly exsanguinating, or [maybe] fresh frozen plasma or platelets are needed. Maybe the trigger for transfusion is too low, or too high. It’s time from a prospective study,” Dr. Miller said.
Vanderbilt doesn’t use tranexamic acid to control trauma bleeding. The study didn’t capture volume of crystalloid infused, serum markers of shock, or coagulation study results.
Subjects were in their late 30s, on average, and 70% were men. Transfusions were more likely in younger patients and those with penetrating injuries, poorer at-scene vital signs and Glasgow coma scores, more severe injuries, and lower hematocrits. With the exception of younger age, those factors were also associated with death.
The investigators had no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – Prehospital blood transfusions during air medical transport did not improve 24-hour or in-hospital mortality at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville.
Investigators there reviewed 5,581 patients transported by helicopter to Vanderbilt from the scene of injury from the period of 2007-2013; they excluded patients who died on the helipad or in the ED. Average flight time was 48 minutes; 231 patients (4%) received prehospital blood transfusions (PBT) of up to two units of O negative packed red blood cells, which is all that the helicopters carried. The decision to transfuse was up to helicopter personnel who were advised to transfuse hemodynamically unstable patients and those who had lost more than a half liter of blood.
Vanderbilt reviewed its data because although PBT has become widespread in air medical transport, results from military and civilian studies are mixed. “A lot of evidence indicates that early, aggressive resuscitation with blood products improves survival once patients arrive at the hospital. It makes sense that starting the process early would improve outcomes, but relatively little is known about the prehospital environment,” said investigator and general surgery resident Dr. Benjamin Miller.
PBT didn’t seem to help at Vanderbilt. On multivariable regression, in-flight transfusion did not improve 24-hour mortality (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.61-2.44) or overall in-hospital mortality (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.55-1.79). It was the same story when 195 transfused patients were matched to 195 who were not transfused, based on mechanism of injury, scene vital signs, injury severity, travel duration, and other measures. Even with matching, PBT did not improve 24-hour mortality (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.54-1.98) or overall mortality (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.56-1.96).
There was a trend for improved 24-hour survival with transfusion when injury severity scores were below 20, but it wasn’t statistically significant, perhaps because few of the less injured patients died.
“Our results show no effect of PBT on 24-hour and overall in-hospital mortality. It’s puzzling to us because it’s counterintuitive to the damage control resuscitation strategy,” Dr. Miller said at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
The findings aren’t robust enough for Vanderbilt to cancel PBT, but they do suggest possible areas for improvement.
Maybe “one or two units of blood are not enough for patients who are severely injured and rapidly exsanguinating, or [maybe] fresh frozen plasma or platelets are needed. Maybe the trigger for transfusion is too low, or too high. It’s time from a prospective study,” Dr. Miller said.
Vanderbilt doesn’t use tranexamic acid to control trauma bleeding. The study didn’t capture volume of crystalloid infused, serum markers of shock, or coagulation study results.
Subjects were in their late 30s, on average, and 70% were men. Transfusions were more likely in younger patients and those with penetrating injuries, poorer at-scene vital signs and Glasgow coma scores, more severe injuries, and lower hematocrits. With the exception of younger age, those factors were also associated with death.
The investigators had no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – Prehospital blood transfusions during air medical transport did not improve 24-hour or in-hospital mortality at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville.
Investigators there reviewed 5,581 patients transported by helicopter to Vanderbilt from the scene of injury from the period of 2007-2013; they excluded patients who died on the helipad or in the ED. Average flight time was 48 minutes; 231 patients (4%) received prehospital blood transfusions (PBT) of up to two units of O negative packed red blood cells, which is all that the helicopters carried. The decision to transfuse was up to helicopter personnel who were advised to transfuse hemodynamically unstable patients and those who had lost more than a half liter of blood.
Vanderbilt reviewed its data because although PBT has become widespread in air medical transport, results from military and civilian studies are mixed. “A lot of evidence indicates that early, aggressive resuscitation with blood products improves survival once patients arrive at the hospital. It makes sense that starting the process early would improve outcomes, but relatively little is known about the prehospital environment,” said investigator and general surgery resident Dr. Benjamin Miller.
PBT didn’t seem to help at Vanderbilt. On multivariable regression, in-flight transfusion did not improve 24-hour mortality (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.61-2.44) or overall in-hospital mortality (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.55-1.79). It was the same story when 195 transfused patients were matched to 195 who were not transfused, based on mechanism of injury, scene vital signs, injury severity, travel duration, and other measures. Even with matching, PBT did not improve 24-hour mortality (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.54-1.98) or overall mortality (OR 1.05; 95% CI 0.56-1.96).
There was a trend for improved 24-hour survival with transfusion when injury severity scores were below 20, but it wasn’t statistically significant, perhaps because few of the less injured patients died.
“Our results show no effect of PBT on 24-hour and overall in-hospital mortality. It’s puzzling to us because it’s counterintuitive to the damage control resuscitation strategy,” Dr. Miller said at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
The findings aren’t robust enough for Vanderbilt to cancel PBT, but they do suggest possible areas for improvement.
Maybe “one or two units of blood are not enough for patients who are severely injured and rapidly exsanguinating, or [maybe] fresh frozen plasma or platelets are needed. Maybe the trigger for transfusion is too low, or too high. It’s time from a prospective study,” Dr. Miller said.
Vanderbilt doesn’t use tranexamic acid to control trauma bleeding. The study didn’t capture volume of crystalloid infused, serum markers of shock, or coagulation study results.
Subjects were in their late 30s, on average, and 70% were men. Transfusions were more likely in younger patients and those with penetrating injuries, poorer at-scene vital signs and Glasgow coma scores, more severe injuries, and lower hematocrits. With the exception of younger age, those factors were also associated with death.
The investigators had no disclosures.
AT The EAST SCIENTIFIC ASSEMBLY
Key clinical point: Air transport teams may need to carry more than two units of packed red blood cells.
Major finding: On multivariable regression, in-flight transfusion did not improve 24-hour survival (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.61-2.44) or overall mortality (OR 1.20; 95% CI 0.55-1.79).
Data source: Retrospective cohort involving 5,581 trauma patients.
Disclosures: The investigators had no disclosures.
VIDEO: Stenting in asymptomatic patients noninferior to endarterectomy at 5 years
LOS ANGELES – In asymptomatic patients under 80 years old, carotid stenting and endarterectomy perform equally as well for severe carotid stenosis out to 5 years, according to a randomized trial published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Overall, 1,032 patients were stented, and 343 had endarterectomies in the trial, called Asymptomatic Carotid Trial I (ACT I). If stenting didn’t look safe on postrandomization angiography, patients were given the option of medical management or crossover into the surgical group. The subjects all had bifurcation carotid stenosis blocking at least 70% of the lumen. None were at high risk for surgical complications. “Asymptomatic” meant they hadn’t had a stroke, transient ischemic attack, or amaurosis fugax in the 6 months before enrollment. Stenting and endarterectomy were done by physicians and centers well experienced in the techniques (N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1515706).
At 1 year, stenting was noninferior to endarterectomy for the primary composite endpoint of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the procedure or ipsilateral stroke within 1 year; the event rate was 3.8% among stent patients and 3.4% among endarterectomy patients (P = .01 for noninferiority, with a noninferiority margin of 3 percentage points).
The cumulative 5-year stroke-free survival rate was 93.1% in the stenting group and 94.7% in the endarterectomy group (P = .44).
For now, the results mean that sometimes choosing between carotid endarterectomy or stenting (or medical management) has as much to do with patient and physician preference as medical science, raising the difficult question of how to choose. In a video interview at the International Stroke Conference, investigator Dr. Lawrence Wechsler, professor of neurology/neurosurgery and chair of the department of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh, shared his thoughts on that and the other implications of the study. The work was funded by Abbott Vascular.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
LOS ANGELES – In asymptomatic patients under 80 years old, carotid stenting and endarterectomy perform equally as well for severe carotid stenosis out to 5 years, according to a randomized trial published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Overall, 1,032 patients were stented, and 343 had endarterectomies in the trial, called Asymptomatic Carotid Trial I (ACT I). If stenting didn’t look safe on postrandomization angiography, patients were given the option of medical management or crossover into the surgical group. The subjects all had bifurcation carotid stenosis blocking at least 70% of the lumen. None were at high risk for surgical complications. “Asymptomatic” meant they hadn’t had a stroke, transient ischemic attack, or amaurosis fugax in the 6 months before enrollment. Stenting and endarterectomy were done by physicians and centers well experienced in the techniques (N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1515706).
At 1 year, stenting was noninferior to endarterectomy for the primary composite endpoint of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the procedure or ipsilateral stroke within 1 year; the event rate was 3.8% among stent patients and 3.4% among endarterectomy patients (P = .01 for noninferiority, with a noninferiority margin of 3 percentage points).
The cumulative 5-year stroke-free survival rate was 93.1% in the stenting group and 94.7% in the endarterectomy group (P = .44).
For now, the results mean that sometimes choosing between carotid endarterectomy or stenting (or medical management) has as much to do with patient and physician preference as medical science, raising the difficult question of how to choose. In a video interview at the International Stroke Conference, investigator Dr. Lawrence Wechsler, professor of neurology/neurosurgery and chair of the department of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh, shared his thoughts on that and the other implications of the study. The work was funded by Abbott Vascular.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
LOS ANGELES – In asymptomatic patients under 80 years old, carotid stenting and endarterectomy perform equally as well for severe carotid stenosis out to 5 years, according to a randomized trial published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Overall, 1,032 patients were stented, and 343 had endarterectomies in the trial, called Asymptomatic Carotid Trial I (ACT I). If stenting didn’t look safe on postrandomization angiography, patients were given the option of medical management or crossover into the surgical group. The subjects all had bifurcation carotid stenosis blocking at least 70% of the lumen. None were at high risk for surgical complications. “Asymptomatic” meant they hadn’t had a stroke, transient ischemic attack, or amaurosis fugax in the 6 months before enrollment. Stenting and endarterectomy were done by physicians and centers well experienced in the techniques (N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 17. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1515706).
At 1 year, stenting was noninferior to endarterectomy for the primary composite endpoint of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the procedure or ipsilateral stroke within 1 year; the event rate was 3.8% among stent patients and 3.4% among endarterectomy patients (P = .01 for noninferiority, with a noninferiority margin of 3 percentage points).
The cumulative 5-year stroke-free survival rate was 93.1% in the stenting group and 94.7% in the endarterectomy group (P = .44).
For now, the results mean that sometimes choosing between carotid endarterectomy or stenting (or medical management) has as much to do with patient and physician preference as medical science, raising the difficult question of how to choose. In a video interview at the International Stroke Conference, investigator Dr. Lawrence Wechsler, professor of neurology/neurosurgery and chair of the department of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh, shared his thoughts on that and the other implications of the study. The work was funded by Abbott Vascular.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT The INTERNATIONAL STROKE CONFERENCE
VIDEO: Post-stroke pioglitazone modestly protective against secondary vascular events
LOS ANGELES – Nondiabetic, insulin-resistant patients who started pioglitazone within 6 months of an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack had almost a 3% absolute risk reduction in secondary strokes and myocardial infarctions after 5 years, in a randomized, clinical trial published online Feb. 17 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Stroke or MI – the study’s primary combined outcome – occurred in 175 of 1,939 (9.0%) pioglitazone (Actos) patients, but 228 of 1,937 (11.8%) placebo patients (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.93; P = 0.52).
Seventy-three pioglitazone patients (3.8%) developed diabetes, compared with 149 (7.7%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.48; P less than 0.001). That wasn’t a surprise; pioglitazone has been shown to protect insulin resistant patients against diabetes, the study investigators noted (N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 17; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1506930).
Known side effects showed up as well. Pioglitazone was associated with a greater frequency of weight gain exceeding 4.5 kg (52.2% versus 33.7%, P less than 0.001), edema (35.6% versus 24.9%, P less than 0.001), and bone fracture requiring surgery or hospitalization (5.1% versus 3.2%, P = 0.003).
Heart failure – another known risk with the drug – did not show up in the trial; people with heart failure histories or other risk factors were excluded.
The median baseline modified Rankin Scale in both groups was 1, and the median NIH Stroke Scale score was 0. The pioglitazone target dose was 45 mg daily.
Insulin resistance is a risk factor for heart attack and stroke, which may help explain the thiazolidinedione’s apparent protective effects. It was defined in the trial as a score greater than 3.0 on the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index.
So, should pioglitazone be a part of routine post-stroke care?
In a video interview at the International Stroke Conference, lead investigator Dr. Walter N. Kernan, a professor of general medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., shared his thoughts.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
LOS ANGELES – Nondiabetic, insulin-resistant patients who started pioglitazone within 6 months of an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack had almost a 3% absolute risk reduction in secondary strokes and myocardial infarctions after 5 years, in a randomized, clinical trial published online Feb. 17 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Stroke or MI – the study’s primary combined outcome – occurred in 175 of 1,939 (9.0%) pioglitazone (Actos) patients, but 228 of 1,937 (11.8%) placebo patients (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.93; P = 0.52).
Seventy-three pioglitazone patients (3.8%) developed diabetes, compared with 149 (7.7%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.48; P less than 0.001). That wasn’t a surprise; pioglitazone has been shown to protect insulin resistant patients against diabetes, the study investigators noted (N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 17; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1506930).
Known side effects showed up as well. Pioglitazone was associated with a greater frequency of weight gain exceeding 4.5 kg (52.2% versus 33.7%, P less than 0.001), edema (35.6% versus 24.9%, P less than 0.001), and bone fracture requiring surgery or hospitalization (5.1% versus 3.2%, P = 0.003).
Heart failure – another known risk with the drug – did not show up in the trial; people with heart failure histories or other risk factors were excluded.
The median baseline modified Rankin Scale in both groups was 1, and the median NIH Stroke Scale score was 0. The pioglitazone target dose was 45 mg daily.
Insulin resistance is a risk factor for heart attack and stroke, which may help explain the thiazolidinedione’s apparent protective effects. It was defined in the trial as a score greater than 3.0 on the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index.
So, should pioglitazone be a part of routine post-stroke care?
In a video interview at the International Stroke Conference, lead investigator Dr. Walter N. Kernan, a professor of general medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., shared his thoughts.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
LOS ANGELES – Nondiabetic, insulin-resistant patients who started pioglitazone within 6 months of an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack had almost a 3% absolute risk reduction in secondary strokes and myocardial infarctions after 5 years, in a randomized, clinical trial published online Feb. 17 in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Stroke or MI – the study’s primary combined outcome – occurred in 175 of 1,939 (9.0%) pioglitazone (Actos) patients, but 228 of 1,937 (11.8%) placebo patients (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = 0.007). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (HR, 0.93; P = 0.52).
Seventy-three pioglitazone patients (3.8%) developed diabetes, compared with 149 (7.7%) in the placebo group (HR, 0.48; P less than 0.001). That wasn’t a surprise; pioglitazone has been shown to protect insulin resistant patients against diabetes, the study investigators noted (N Engl J Med. 2016 Feb 17; doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1506930).
Known side effects showed up as well. Pioglitazone was associated with a greater frequency of weight gain exceeding 4.5 kg (52.2% versus 33.7%, P less than 0.001), edema (35.6% versus 24.9%, P less than 0.001), and bone fracture requiring surgery or hospitalization (5.1% versus 3.2%, P = 0.003).
Heart failure – another known risk with the drug – did not show up in the trial; people with heart failure histories or other risk factors were excluded.
The median baseline modified Rankin Scale in both groups was 1, and the median NIH Stroke Scale score was 0. The pioglitazone target dose was 45 mg daily.
Insulin resistance is a risk factor for heart attack and stroke, which may help explain the thiazolidinedione’s apparent protective effects. It was defined in the trial as a score greater than 3.0 on the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) index.
So, should pioglitazone be a part of routine post-stroke care?
In a video interview at the International Stroke Conference, lead investigator Dr. Walter N. Kernan, a professor of general medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., shared his thoughts.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT THE INTERNATIONAL STROKE CONFERENCE
SDEF: For some HS patients, adalimumab is a life changer
Adalimumab has made a big difference in the lives of hidradenitis suppurativa patients at Dr. Jeffrey Sobell’s dermatology clinic, SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass.
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) “is a nightmare, probably the most negatively life-impacting disease we see in all of dermatology. We finally have a therapy to address it.” Adalimumab “has been life changing for a number of my patients,” he said at the SDEF Hawaii Dermatology Seminar.
The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor is the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for the condition; an indication for moderate to severe disease in adults was added to labeling in September 2015. Dr. Sobell estimates he’s used adalimumab in about 20 HS patients, with more successes than failures.
“It’s a disease that’s embarrassing, occurring in areas of the skin that nobody wants to show their doctor or talk to their friends or family about. It’s not just pain; there’s a lot of drainage from the lesions that can be very malodorous, and that’s just devastating for patients. It impacts all aspects of people’s lives. Socially, people become very isolated; with employment, people go on disability because of the pain. [Adalimumab] has really brought many of my patients back to life,” said Dr. Sobell, also an assistant professor of dermatology at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston.
In two phase III trials, about 53% of patients, versus about a quarter of placebo patients, had a 50% or more reduction in inflammatory nodules and abscesses. Overall, “more than half of patients achieve a clinically meaningful improvement by week 12, which correlates with improvements in quality of life and work productivity, Dr. Sobell said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.
“What I find with most patients is a reduction in the frequency, severity, and intensity of flare-ups, and a reduction in the amount of time someone has active lesions. It doesn’t completely put patients into remission, but it really improves their” lives, he added.
Dr. Sobell turns to adalimumab when standard treatments – typically oral antibiotics – aren’t working, or when there’s scarring, sinus tract formation, or poorly controlled pain.
The dose is the same as for inflammatory bowel disease and higher than what dermatologists are used to using for psoriasis. HS patients start out with a loading dose of 160 mg, followed by 80 mg at week 2, and a weekly 40 mg maintenance dose starting at week 4. When adalimumab works, patients can start responding in as early as 2 weeks, and results seem durable. Dr. Sobell said that he has not noticed any decline in response with time, including in one patient who’s going into the fourth year on the medication, after it was started off label.
Higher doses are needed because HS patients tend to be heavier than psoriasis patients, and their lesions have higher levels of tumor necrosis factors and other inflammatory cytokines.
Dr. Sobell said that he has not had a problem with side effects, despite the higher doses. None of his HS patients have developed serious infections or medication-associated cancers, the main concerns with adalimumab. In trials, safety was similar in HS and psoriasis patients, and that’s what he’s seen in his practice. “I haven’t had any more problems with my HS patients than with my psoriasis patients,” he said.
Dr. Sobell disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, which markets adalimumab as Humira.
SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Adalimumab has made a big difference in the lives of hidradenitis suppurativa patients at Dr. Jeffrey Sobell’s dermatology clinic, SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass.
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) “is a nightmare, probably the most negatively life-impacting disease we see in all of dermatology. We finally have a therapy to address it.” Adalimumab “has been life changing for a number of my patients,” he said at the SDEF Hawaii Dermatology Seminar.
The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor is the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for the condition; an indication for moderate to severe disease in adults was added to labeling in September 2015. Dr. Sobell estimates he’s used adalimumab in about 20 HS patients, with more successes than failures.
“It’s a disease that’s embarrassing, occurring in areas of the skin that nobody wants to show their doctor or talk to their friends or family about. It’s not just pain; there’s a lot of drainage from the lesions that can be very malodorous, and that’s just devastating for patients. It impacts all aspects of people’s lives. Socially, people become very isolated; with employment, people go on disability because of the pain. [Adalimumab] has really brought many of my patients back to life,” said Dr. Sobell, also an assistant professor of dermatology at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston.
In two phase III trials, about 53% of patients, versus about a quarter of placebo patients, had a 50% or more reduction in inflammatory nodules and abscesses. Overall, “more than half of patients achieve a clinically meaningful improvement by week 12, which correlates with improvements in quality of life and work productivity, Dr. Sobell said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.
“What I find with most patients is a reduction in the frequency, severity, and intensity of flare-ups, and a reduction in the amount of time someone has active lesions. It doesn’t completely put patients into remission, but it really improves their” lives, he added.
Dr. Sobell turns to adalimumab when standard treatments – typically oral antibiotics – aren’t working, or when there’s scarring, sinus tract formation, or poorly controlled pain.
The dose is the same as for inflammatory bowel disease and higher than what dermatologists are used to using for psoriasis. HS patients start out with a loading dose of 160 mg, followed by 80 mg at week 2, and a weekly 40 mg maintenance dose starting at week 4. When adalimumab works, patients can start responding in as early as 2 weeks, and results seem durable. Dr. Sobell said that he has not noticed any decline in response with time, including in one patient who’s going into the fourth year on the medication, after it was started off label.
Higher doses are needed because HS patients tend to be heavier than psoriasis patients, and their lesions have higher levels of tumor necrosis factors and other inflammatory cytokines.
Dr. Sobell said that he has not had a problem with side effects, despite the higher doses. None of his HS patients have developed serious infections or medication-associated cancers, the main concerns with adalimumab. In trials, safety was similar in HS and psoriasis patients, and that’s what he’s seen in his practice. “I haven’t had any more problems with my HS patients than with my psoriasis patients,” he said.
Dr. Sobell disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, which markets adalimumab as Humira.
SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
Adalimumab has made a big difference in the lives of hidradenitis suppurativa patients at Dr. Jeffrey Sobell’s dermatology clinic, SkinCare Physicians in Chestnut Hill, Mass.
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) “is a nightmare, probably the most negatively life-impacting disease we see in all of dermatology. We finally have a therapy to address it.” Adalimumab “has been life changing for a number of my patients,” he said at the SDEF Hawaii Dermatology Seminar.
The tumor necrosis factor inhibitor is the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment for the condition; an indication for moderate to severe disease in adults was added to labeling in September 2015. Dr. Sobell estimates he’s used adalimumab in about 20 HS patients, with more successes than failures.
“It’s a disease that’s embarrassing, occurring in areas of the skin that nobody wants to show their doctor or talk to their friends or family about. It’s not just pain; there’s a lot of drainage from the lesions that can be very malodorous, and that’s just devastating for patients. It impacts all aspects of people’s lives. Socially, people become very isolated; with employment, people go on disability because of the pain. [Adalimumab] has really brought many of my patients back to life,” said Dr. Sobell, also an assistant professor of dermatology at Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston.
In two phase III trials, about 53% of patients, versus about a quarter of placebo patients, had a 50% or more reduction in inflammatory nodules and abscesses. Overall, “more than half of patients achieve a clinically meaningful improvement by week 12, which correlates with improvements in quality of life and work productivity, Dr. Sobell said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.
“What I find with most patients is a reduction in the frequency, severity, and intensity of flare-ups, and a reduction in the amount of time someone has active lesions. It doesn’t completely put patients into remission, but it really improves their” lives, he added.
Dr. Sobell turns to adalimumab when standard treatments – typically oral antibiotics – aren’t working, or when there’s scarring, sinus tract formation, or poorly controlled pain.
The dose is the same as for inflammatory bowel disease and higher than what dermatologists are used to using for psoriasis. HS patients start out with a loading dose of 160 mg, followed by 80 mg at week 2, and a weekly 40 mg maintenance dose starting at week 4. When adalimumab works, patients can start responding in as early as 2 weeks, and results seem durable. Dr. Sobell said that he has not noticed any decline in response with time, including in one patient who’s going into the fourth year on the medication, after it was started off label.
Higher doses are needed because HS patients tend to be heavier than psoriasis patients, and their lesions have higher levels of tumor necrosis factors and other inflammatory cytokines.
Dr. Sobell said that he has not had a problem with side effects, despite the higher doses. None of his HS patients have developed serious infections or medication-associated cancers, the main concerns with adalimumab. In trials, safety was similar in HS and psoriasis patients, and that’s what he’s seen in his practice. “I haven’t had any more problems with my HS patients than with my psoriasis patients,” he said.
Dr. Sobell disclosed relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, which markets adalimumab as Humira.
SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM The SDEF HAWAII DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR
Tourniquets overemphasized in mass shooting response planning
SAN ANTONIO – Tourniquets are being overemphasized in preparations for mass shootings in the United States, according to a review by the Committee for Tactical Emergency Casualty Care of wounding patterns in 12 mass shootings.
Since the 2012 shootings in Newtown, Conn., efforts to improve survival have tended to emphasize tourniquets to stop bleeding from wounded limbs. The recently-launched federal “Stop the Bleed” campaign promotes public awareness of compression and tourniquets, and the American College of Surgeons and other groups recently called for public education and use of tourniquets as one of many responses to mass-casualty and active-shooter events, stating that “the most significant preventable cause of death in the prehospital environment is external hemorrhage.” There are thoughts of making tourniquets at least as common as automated external defibrillators in public settings.
The efforts are driven by combat experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, where about half of wounds were to arms and legs, and tourniquets saved many lives.
Tourniquets are important especially for civilian bombings, but fatalities in civilian mass shootings – shootings with at least four deaths in which killing is the primary aim – are from head and chest wounds, not extremity wounds. The emphasis on bleeding control overshadows public education about other simple interventions that could be more useful in shootings, according to emergency physician Dr. Reed Smith, medical director of the Arlington County (Va.) Fire Department and cofounder and cochairman of the Committee for Tactical Emergency Casualty Care (C-TECC).
“We need a civilian perspective on civilian incidents, not a military perspective,” he said at the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma scientific assembly.
Dr. Smith and other C-TECC investigators reviewed autopsy reports from 12 U.S. civilian mass shootings from the period of 1996-2012. They tried to get data for more, but ran into significant resistance from authorities.
There were 371 bullet wounds and 139 deaths, an average of 2.7 wounds per victim but a range of 1-10. About 40% of deaths were from shots to the head; another 40% from shots to the chest or upper back; and the rest from shots to the face/neck, abdomen/lower back, or multiple regions.
“We looked at every one of these events, and with the exception of the Gabby Giffords Tucson shooting, no tourniquets were used. There were no cases of major peripheral vascular injury, and no fatalities from extremity exsanguination,” Dr. Smith said.
The investigators estimated that nine fatalities were potentially survivable, without injuries to the heart, brain, or major blood vessels, and definitive care available within 60 minutes. The victims died from face and torso wounds, not wounds to the limbs.
“Wounding in active-shooter events differs from combat and may require different therapeutic emphasis. Although tourniquets and external hemorrhage control techniques hold value, their role in active-shooter events may be overemphasized as a means to decrease fatality. The focus on external hemorrhage is important, but it’s not enough,” Dr. Smith said.
Additional interventions could be taught for every step in the chain of contact, from citizen to trauma surgeon, that could have greater benefit. Teachers, for instance, could be taught to roll victims on their sides and clear out their mouths to keep airways open, and to keep them warm to prevent hypothermia until help arrives. Police could learn to insert nasal airways, and occlude sucking chest wounds. Fire/EMS could start initial damage control. “Everything builds,” Dr. Smith said.
C-TECC made many recommendations for enhanced mass-causality response its 2015 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care Guidelines.
Dr. Smith had no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – Tourniquets are being overemphasized in preparations for mass shootings in the United States, according to a review by the Committee for Tactical Emergency Casualty Care of wounding patterns in 12 mass shootings.
Since the 2012 shootings in Newtown, Conn., efforts to improve survival have tended to emphasize tourniquets to stop bleeding from wounded limbs. The recently-launched federal “Stop the Bleed” campaign promotes public awareness of compression and tourniquets, and the American College of Surgeons and other groups recently called for public education and use of tourniquets as one of many responses to mass-casualty and active-shooter events, stating that “the most significant preventable cause of death in the prehospital environment is external hemorrhage.” There are thoughts of making tourniquets at least as common as automated external defibrillators in public settings.
The efforts are driven by combat experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, where about half of wounds were to arms and legs, and tourniquets saved many lives.
Tourniquets are important especially for civilian bombings, but fatalities in civilian mass shootings – shootings with at least four deaths in which killing is the primary aim – are from head and chest wounds, not extremity wounds. The emphasis on bleeding control overshadows public education about other simple interventions that could be more useful in shootings, according to emergency physician Dr. Reed Smith, medical director of the Arlington County (Va.) Fire Department and cofounder and cochairman of the Committee for Tactical Emergency Casualty Care (C-TECC).
“We need a civilian perspective on civilian incidents, not a military perspective,” he said at the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma scientific assembly.
Dr. Smith and other C-TECC investigators reviewed autopsy reports from 12 U.S. civilian mass shootings from the period of 1996-2012. They tried to get data for more, but ran into significant resistance from authorities.
There were 371 bullet wounds and 139 deaths, an average of 2.7 wounds per victim but a range of 1-10. About 40% of deaths were from shots to the head; another 40% from shots to the chest or upper back; and the rest from shots to the face/neck, abdomen/lower back, or multiple regions.
“We looked at every one of these events, and with the exception of the Gabby Giffords Tucson shooting, no tourniquets were used. There were no cases of major peripheral vascular injury, and no fatalities from extremity exsanguination,” Dr. Smith said.
The investigators estimated that nine fatalities were potentially survivable, without injuries to the heart, brain, or major blood vessels, and definitive care available within 60 minutes. The victims died from face and torso wounds, not wounds to the limbs.
“Wounding in active-shooter events differs from combat and may require different therapeutic emphasis. Although tourniquets and external hemorrhage control techniques hold value, their role in active-shooter events may be overemphasized as a means to decrease fatality. The focus on external hemorrhage is important, but it’s not enough,” Dr. Smith said.
Additional interventions could be taught for every step in the chain of contact, from citizen to trauma surgeon, that could have greater benefit. Teachers, for instance, could be taught to roll victims on their sides and clear out their mouths to keep airways open, and to keep them warm to prevent hypothermia until help arrives. Police could learn to insert nasal airways, and occlude sucking chest wounds. Fire/EMS could start initial damage control. “Everything builds,” Dr. Smith said.
C-TECC made many recommendations for enhanced mass-causality response its 2015 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care Guidelines.
Dr. Smith had no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – Tourniquets are being overemphasized in preparations for mass shootings in the United States, according to a review by the Committee for Tactical Emergency Casualty Care of wounding patterns in 12 mass shootings.
Since the 2012 shootings in Newtown, Conn., efforts to improve survival have tended to emphasize tourniquets to stop bleeding from wounded limbs. The recently-launched federal “Stop the Bleed” campaign promotes public awareness of compression and tourniquets, and the American College of Surgeons and other groups recently called for public education and use of tourniquets as one of many responses to mass-casualty and active-shooter events, stating that “the most significant preventable cause of death in the prehospital environment is external hemorrhage.” There are thoughts of making tourniquets at least as common as automated external defibrillators in public settings.
The efforts are driven by combat experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, where about half of wounds were to arms and legs, and tourniquets saved many lives.
Tourniquets are important especially for civilian bombings, but fatalities in civilian mass shootings – shootings with at least four deaths in which killing is the primary aim – are from head and chest wounds, not extremity wounds. The emphasis on bleeding control overshadows public education about other simple interventions that could be more useful in shootings, according to emergency physician Dr. Reed Smith, medical director of the Arlington County (Va.) Fire Department and cofounder and cochairman of the Committee for Tactical Emergency Casualty Care (C-TECC).
“We need a civilian perspective on civilian incidents, not a military perspective,” he said at the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma scientific assembly.
Dr. Smith and other C-TECC investigators reviewed autopsy reports from 12 U.S. civilian mass shootings from the period of 1996-2012. They tried to get data for more, but ran into significant resistance from authorities.
There were 371 bullet wounds and 139 deaths, an average of 2.7 wounds per victim but a range of 1-10. About 40% of deaths were from shots to the head; another 40% from shots to the chest or upper back; and the rest from shots to the face/neck, abdomen/lower back, or multiple regions.
“We looked at every one of these events, and with the exception of the Gabby Giffords Tucson shooting, no tourniquets were used. There were no cases of major peripheral vascular injury, and no fatalities from extremity exsanguination,” Dr. Smith said.
The investigators estimated that nine fatalities were potentially survivable, without injuries to the heart, brain, or major blood vessels, and definitive care available within 60 minutes. The victims died from face and torso wounds, not wounds to the limbs.
“Wounding in active-shooter events differs from combat and may require different therapeutic emphasis. Although tourniquets and external hemorrhage control techniques hold value, their role in active-shooter events may be overemphasized as a means to decrease fatality. The focus on external hemorrhage is important, but it’s not enough,” Dr. Smith said.
Additional interventions could be taught for every step in the chain of contact, from citizen to trauma surgeon, that could have greater benefit. Teachers, for instance, could be taught to roll victims on their sides and clear out their mouths to keep airways open, and to keep them warm to prevent hypothermia until help arrives. Police could learn to insert nasal airways, and occlude sucking chest wounds. Fire/EMS could start initial damage control. “Everything builds,” Dr. Smith said.
C-TECC made many recommendations for enhanced mass-causality response its 2015 Tactical Emergency Casualty Care Guidelines.
Dr. Smith had no disclosures.
AT THE EAST SCIENTIFIC ASSEMBLY
Key clinical point: Tourniquets aren’t much help in civilian mass shootings.
Major finding: There were no cases of major peripheral vascular injury, and no fatalities from extremity exsanguination in a review of 12 mass shootings in the United States from 1996-2012.
Data source: Autopsy reports.
Disclosures: The lead investigator had no disclosures.
VTE prophylaxis within 72 hours seems safe in severe TBI
SAN ANTONIO – Initiation of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis within 72 hours of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) reduced the odds of venous thromboembolism by 50% without increasing subsequent intracranial complications or death in a large, propensity-matched cohort study from the University of Toronto.
The investigators matched 1,234 adult patients given prophylaxis before 72 hours – the early-prophylaxis (EP) group – to 1,234 given prophylaxis at 72 hours or later – the late-prophylaxis (LP) group – based on demographics, injury characteristics, intracranial lesions, early neurosurgical procedures, and prophylaxis type.
EP patients had a significantly lower rate of pulmonary embolism (1.1% vs. 2.4%; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.91) and deep vein thrombosis (4.2% vs. 7.9%; OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.72), with no significant increase in the risk of death (9.8% EP vs. 9% LP; OR, 1.1; 95% CI 0.84-1.4) or late secondary craniotomy/-ectomy (EP 2.5% vs. LP 2.9%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.53-1.4) or intracranial monitoring/drainage (EP 1.1% vs. LP 1.4%; OR, 0.76; 95% CI 0.37-1.6) from VTE complications or other reasons.
“Practice guidelines say we should initiate VTE [venous thromboembolism] prophylaxis” in severe TBI “as early as possible. It’s a very loose recommendation,” so some centers wait 72 hours or longer for fear of extending intracranial hemorrhages. Pending results from prospective trials, “our study lends evidence that early prophylaxis in this population may be safe,” said investigator and University of Toronto general surgery resident, Dr. James Byrne.
The study included 3,634 severe, adult TBI patients in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database from 2012-2014. The subjects had head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores of at least 3, Glasgow Coma Scale scores of no more than 8, and, in almost all cases, initial surgeries within 48 hours. Injury was due to blunt trauma. Patients who died or were discharged within 5 days of their injury and those with severe injuries to other body areas were excluded from the analysis.
The median time to starting VTE prophylaxis was 84 hours across the 186 trauma centers in the study, but ranged from 48-150 hours. Centers started prophylaxis within 72 hours in 18%-54% of patients. Fifty-five percent of patients had prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, and the rest with unfractionated heparin. Overall, 1.7% of patients developed pulmonary emboli, and 6.5% deep vein thromboses. Less than 3% had secondary neurosurgical interventions.
Prophylaxis was more likely to be delayed past 72 hours in patients with higher head AIS scores; subdural hematomas; subarachnoid hemorrhages; blood transfusions within 12 hours of admission; and early neurosurgery. Low-molecular-weight heparin was the more likely option past 72 hours.
Among the 114 centers who treated 10 or more patients, there was a continuous trend toward lower VTE rates with higher EP use, a rate of 9.1% in centers using EP in 18% of patients, but 6.1% in centers using it in 54% (P = .126).
The decision of when to start prophylaxis in severe TBI “still needs to be made at the patient level, but it may be safe to start earlier than 72 hours,” Dr. Byrne said.
The median age in the study was about 43 years, and three-quarters of the subjects were men. Most of the injuries were due to falls or motor vehicle crashes.
Dr. Byrne had no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – Initiation of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis within 72 hours of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) reduced the odds of venous thromboembolism by 50% without increasing subsequent intracranial complications or death in a large, propensity-matched cohort study from the University of Toronto.
The investigators matched 1,234 adult patients given prophylaxis before 72 hours – the early-prophylaxis (EP) group – to 1,234 given prophylaxis at 72 hours or later – the late-prophylaxis (LP) group – based on demographics, injury characteristics, intracranial lesions, early neurosurgical procedures, and prophylaxis type.
EP patients had a significantly lower rate of pulmonary embolism (1.1% vs. 2.4%; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.91) and deep vein thrombosis (4.2% vs. 7.9%; OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.72), with no significant increase in the risk of death (9.8% EP vs. 9% LP; OR, 1.1; 95% CI 0.84-1.4) or late secondary craniotomy/-ectomy (EP 2.5% vs. LP 2.9%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.53-1.4) or intracranial monitoring/drainage (EP 1.1% vs. LP 1.4%; OR, 0.76; 95% CI 0.37-1.6) from VTE complications or other reasons.
“Practice guidelines say we should initiate VTE [venous thromboembolism] prophylaxis” in severe TBI “as early as possible. It’s a very loose recommendation,” so some centers wait 72 hours or longer for fear of extending intracranial hemorrhages. Pending results from prospective trials, “our study lends evidence that early prophylaxis in this population may be safe,” said investigator and University of Toronto general surgery resident, Dr. James Byrne.
The study included 3,634 severe, adult TBI patients in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database from 2012-2014. The subjects had head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores of at least 3, Glasgow Coma Scale scores of no more than 8, and, in almost all cases, initial surgeries within 48 hours. Injury was due to blunt trauma. Patients who died or were discharged within 5 days of their injury and those with severe injuries to other body areas were excluded from the analysis.
The median time to starting VTE prophylaxis was 84 hours across the 186 trauma centers in the study, but ranged from 48-150 hours. Centers started prophylaxis within 72 hours in 18%-54% of patients. Fifty-five percent of patients had prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, and the rest with unfractionated heparin. Overall, 1.7% of patients developed pulmonary emboli, and 6.5% deep vein thromboses. Less than 3% had secondary neurosurgical interventions.
Prophylaxis was more likely to be delayed past 72 hours in patients with higher head AIS scores; subdural hematomas; subarachnoid hemorrhages; blood transfusions within 12 hours of admission; and early neurosurgery. Low-molecular-weight heparin was the more likely option past 72 hours.
Among the 114 centers who treated 10 or more patients, there was a continuous trend toward lower VTE rates with higher EP use, a rate of 9.1% in centers using EP in 18% of patients, but 6.1% in centers using it in 54% (P = .126).
The decision of when to start prophylaxis in severe TBI “still needs to be made at the patient level, but it may be safe to start earlier than 72 hours,” Dr. Byrne said.
The median age in the study was about 43 years, and three-quarters of the subjects were men. Most of the injuries were due to falls or motor vehicle crashes.
Dr. Byrne had no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – Initiation of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis within 72 hours of severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) reduced the odds of venous thromboembolism by 50% without increasing subsequent intracranial complications or death in a large, propensity-matched cohort study from the University of Toronto.
The investigators matched 1,234 adult patients given prophylaxis before 72 hours – the early-prophylaxis (EP) group – to 1,234 given prophylaxis at 72 hours or later – the late-prophylaxis (LP) group – based on demographics, injury characteristics, intracranial lesions, early neurosurgical procedures, and prophylaxis type.
EP patients had a significantly lower rate of pulmonary embolism (1.1% vs. 2.4%; odds ratio, 0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.25-0.91) and deep vein thrombosis (4.2% vs. 7.9%; OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.72), with no significant increase in the risk of death (9.8% EP vs. 9% LP; OR, 1.1; 95% CI 0.84-1.4) or late secondary craniotomy/-ectomy (EP 2.5% vs. LP 2.9%; OR, 0.86; 95% CI 0.53-1.4) or intracranial monitoring/drainage (EP 1.1% vs. LP 1.4%; OR, 0.76; 95% CI 0.37-1.6) from VTE complications or other reasons.
“Practice guidelines say we should initiate VTE [venous thromboembolism] prophylaxis” in severe TBI “as early as possible. It’s a very loose recommendation,” so some centers wait 72 hours or longer for fear of extending intracranial hemorrhages. Pending results from prospective trials, “our study lends evidence that early prophylaxis in this population may be safe,” said investigator and University of Toronto general surgery resident, Dr. James Byrne.
The study included 3,634 severe, adult TBI patients in the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program database from 2012-2014. The subjects had head Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores of at least 3, Glasgow Coma Scale scores of no more than 8, and, in almost all cases, initial surgeries within 48 hours. Injury was due to blunt trauma. Patients who died or were discharged within 5 days of their injury and those with severe injuries to other body areas were excluded from the analysis.
The median time to starting VTE prophylaxis was 84 hours across the 186 trauma centers in the study, but ranged from 48-150 hours. Centers started prophylaxis within 72 hours in 18%-54% of patients. Fifty-five percent of patients had prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, and the rest with unfractionated heparin. Overall, 1.7% of patients developed pulmonary emboli, and 6.5% deep vein thromboses. Less than 3% had secondary neurosurgical interventions.
Prophylaxis was more likely to be delayed past 72 hours in patients with higher head AIS scores; subdural hematomas; subarachnoid hemorrhages; blood transfusions within 12 hours of admission; and early neurosurgery. Low-molecular-weight heparin was the more likely option past 72 hours.
Among the 114 centers who treated 10 or more patients, there was a continuous trend toward lower VTE rates with higher EP use, a rate of 9.1% in centers using EP in 18% of patients, but 6.1% in centers using it in 54% (P = .126).
The decision of when to start prophylaxis in severe TBI “still needs to be made at the patient level, but it may be safe to start earlier than 72 hours,” Dr. Byrne said.
The median age in the study was about 43 years, and three-quarters of the subjects were men. Most of the injuries were due to falls or motor vehicle crashes.
Dr. Byrne had no disclosures.
AT THE EAST SCIENTIFIC ASSEMBLY
Key clinical point: VTE prophylaxis within 72 hours appears to be safe in patients with TBI.
Major finding: Patients who had prophylaxis within 72 hours had a significantly lower rate of pulmonary embolism, compared with those started later (1.1% vs. 2.4%); and deep vein thrombosis (4.2% vs. 7.9%).
Data source: More than 2,000 patients in a propensity-matched cohort study from the University of Toronto.
Disclosures: Dr. Byrne had no disclosures.
Surgeons dinged by incomplete risk adjustment for emergency cases
SAN ANTONIO – Perioperative risk factors affect postoperative morbidity and mortality differently in emergency and nonemergency surgery, according to an analysis of the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database by investigators from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
“Instead of using the same risk-adjustment model for both ... as is currently being done, our findings strongly suggest the need to benchmark emergent and elective surgeries separately,” they concluded.
“Most risk-adjustment models simply have an on/off switch for whether or not the patient underwent emergency surgery and treat comorbidities and other perioperative variables the same.” Those variables, however, “don’t behave the same way in emergency surgery,” said investigator Dr. Jordan Bohnen, a surgical research resident at Mass General.
Because risk adjustment doesn’t take into account variables that have a particularly strong negative impact in emergency settings, acute care surgeons are getting “unnecessarily dinged for having higher complication rates,” he said at the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma scientific assembly.
For example, the team found that preop transfusions and white blood counts (WBC) at or below 4.5 carry a significantly higher risk of 30-day major morbidity or mortality (MMM) in emergency versus nonemergency surgery. Conversely, ascites, preop anemia, and leukocytosis carry a greater MMM risk in nonemergent cases.
The findings come from a comparison of 110,182 nonemergent surgeries to 59,949 emergency cases – generally meaning surgery within 12 hours of emergency department (ED) admission – from the NSQIP database for 2011-2012.
As expected, the overall risk of MMM was significantly higher for emergency cases (16.75% vs. 9.73%; P less than .001), and four procedures – laparoscopic cholecystectomy, exploratory laparotomy, and umbilical and incisional hernia repairs – were relatively riskier when done emergently.
“As surgical quality improvement efforts mature, it’s increasingly important to apply accurate risk-adjustment models to benchmark quality improvement for surgeons, hospitals, and health care systems.” The current “assumption that perioperative variables have an equal impact on outcomes in emergent and nonemergent settings” is incorrect. “Risk factors for bad outcomes change depending on the setting,” Dr. Bohnen said.
Dr. Bohnen has no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – Perioperative risk factors affect postoperative morbidity and mortality differently in emergency and nonemergency surgery, according to an analysis of the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database by investigators from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
“Instead of using the same risk-adjustment model for both ... as is currently being done, our findings strongly suggest the need to benchmark emergent and elective surgeries separately,” they concluded.
“Most risk-adjustment models simply have an on/off switch for whether or not the patient underwent emergency surgery and treat comorbidities and other perioperative variables the same.” Those variables, however, “don’t behave the same way in emergency surgery,” said investigator Dr. Jordan Bohnen, a surgical research resident at Mass General.
Because risk adjustment doesn’t take into account variables that have a particularly strong negative impact in emergency settings, acute care surgeons are getting “unnecessarily dinged for having higher complication rates,” he said at the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma scientific assembly.
For example, the team found that preop transfusions and white blood counts (WBC) at or below 4.5 carry a significantly higher risk of 30-day major morbidity or mortality (MMM) in emergency versus nonemergency surgery. Conversely, ascites, preop anemia, and leukocytosis carry a greater MMM risk in nonemergent cases.
The findings come from a comparison of 110,182 nonemergent surgeries to 59,949 emergency cases – generally meaning surgery within 12 hours of emergency department (ED) admission – from the NSQIP database for 2011-2012.
As expected, the overall risk of MMM was significantly higher for emergency cases (16.75% vs. 9.73%; P less than .001), and four procedures – laparoscopic cholecystectomy, exploratory laparotomy, and umbilical and incisional hernia repairs – were relatively riskier when done emergently.
“As surgical quality improvement efforts mature, it’s increasingly important to apply accurate risk-adjustment models to benchmark quality improvement for surgeons, hospitals, and health care systems.” The current “assumption that perioperative variables have an equal impact on outcomes in emergent and nonemergent settings” is incorrect. “Risk factors for bad outcomes change depending on the setting,” Dr. Bohnen said.
Dr. Bohnen has no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – Perioperative risk factors affect postoperative morbidity and mortality differently in emergency and nonemergency surgery, according to an analysis of the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database by investigators from Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
“Instead of using the same risk-adjustment model for both ... as is currently being done, our findings strongly suggest the need to benchmark emergent and elective surgeries separately,” they concluded.
“Most risk-adjustment models simply have an on/off switch for whether or not the patient underwent emergency surgery and treat comorbidities and other perioperative variables the same.” Those variables, however, “don’t behave the same way in emergency surgery,” said investigator Dr. Jordan Bohnen, a surgical research resident at Mass General.
Because risk adjustment doesn’t take into account variables that have a particularly strong negative impact in emergency settings, acute care surgeons are getting “unnecessarily dinged for having higher complication rates,” he said at the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma scientific assembly.
For example, the team found that preop transfusions and white blood counts (WBC) at or below 4.5 carry a significantly higher risk of 30-day major morbidity or mortality (MMM) in emergency versus nonemergency surgery. Conversely, ascites, preop anemia, and leukocytosis carry a greater MMM risk in nonemergent cases.
The findings come from a comparison of 110,182 nonemergent surgeries to 59,949 emergency cases – generally meaning surgery within 12 hours of emergency department (ED) admission – from the NSQIP database for 2011-2012.
As expected, the overall risk of MMM was significantly higher for emergency cases (16.75% vs. 9.73%; P less than .001), and four procedures – laparoscopic cholecystectomy, exploratory laparotomy, and umbilical and incisional hernia repairs – were relatively riskier when done emergently.
“As surgical quality improvement efforts mature, it’s increasingly important to apply accurate risk-adjustment models to benchmark quality improvement for surgeons, hospitals, and health care systems.” The current “assumption that perioperative variables have an equal impact on outcomes in emergent and nonemergent settings” is incorrect. “Risk factors for bad outcomes change depending on the setting,” Dr. Bohnen said.
Dr. Bohnen has no disclosures.
AT THE EAST SCIENTIFIC ASSEMBLY
Key clinical point: Emergent and elective surgeries need to be benchmarked separately.
Major finding: Preop transfusions and WBC counts at or below 4.5 carry a significantly higher risk of 30-day major morbidity or mortality (MMM) in emergency surgery. Conversely, ascites, preop anemia, and leukocytosis carry a greater MMM risk in nonemergent cases.
Data source: More than 170,000 cases in the NSQIP database
Disclosures: The presenter has no disclosures.
Shorter hours, longer breaks for surgery residents not shown to improve patient outcomes
JACKSONVILLE, FLA. – Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) rules that shortened surgery resident shifts and expanded breaks didn’t improve patient safety or surgery resident well-being in a trial presented at the Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons Academic Surgical Congress.
“This national, prospective, randomized trial showed that flexible, less-restrictive duty-hour policies for surgical residents were noninferior to standard ACGME duty-hour policies,” wrote Dr. Karl Bilimoria, associate surgery professor at Northwestern University, Chicago, and associates. The work was published simultaneously Feb. 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1515724).
Recent ACGME residency reforms were meant to reduce fatigue-related errors, but there have been concerns that they have come at the cost of increased handoffs and reduced education.
To get a handle on the situation, the investigators randomized 59 teaching-hospital surgery programs to standard ACGME duty hours and 58 others to a freer approach in the 2014-2015 academic year. Residents weren’t allowed to work more than 80 hours per week in either group, but hospitals in the flexible-hour arm were allowed to push residents past ACGME policy, working first-year residents longer than 16 hours per shift and others more than 28 hours, with breaks of less than 14 hours after 24-hour shifts and less than 8-10 hours after shorter ones.
Among the 138,691 adult general surgery cases during the academic year, there was no increase in 30-day rates of postoperative deaths or serious complications in the flexible group (9.1% vs. 9.0% with standard policy, P = .92) or secondary postoperative outcomes, based on risk-adjusted data from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP).
The 4,330 residents in the study filled out a multiple-choice questionnaire midway through the project in January 2015. Those in the flexible group said they weren’t significantly unhappier with the quality of their education (11.0% vs. 10.7% in the standard group, P = .86) or well-being (14.9% and 12.0%, P = .10). The investigators didn’t report the lengths of shifts or breaks.
There were no significant differences in resident-reported perceptions of fatigue on personal or patient safety. Residents in the flexible group were less likely to report leaving an operation (7.0% vs. 13.2%, P less than .001) or handing off patients with active issues (32% vs. 46.3%, P less than .001).
Flexible duty-hour residents “noted numerous benefits with respect to nearly all aspects of patient safety, continuity of care, surgical training, and professionalism. However, residents reported that less-restrictive duty-hour policies had a negative effect on [their] time with family and friends, time for extracurricular activities, rest, and health. Importantly … residents’ satisfaction with overall well-being did not differ significantly between study groups,” Dr. Karl Bilimoria and associates concluded.
The investigators “did not specifically collect data on needle sticks and car accidents, because these are notoriously challenging outcomes to capture in surveys,” they noted.
In an interview, Dr. Bilimoria commented, “Increasingly over time we’ve had more regulations of duty hours, and with each set of regulations the surgical community became increasingly concerned about patient handoffs and continuity of care, so our focus was to identify those policies that we thought affected continuity of care and work with the ACGME to waive those for the centers that were in the flexible arm of the study.”
His comments on the impact on residents: “The residents very clearly noted that the flexible policy arm provided better continuity of care, allowed them to take care of their patients in a way that they wanted to and stay with their patients in the operating room and at times when their patients were unstable.”
When asked if the findings could be extrapolated to these smaller nonparticipating centers, Dr. Bilimoria responded, “We captured the majority of residents, and we’re working on an analysis now that seeks to understand what the generalizability would be to those nonparticipating programs. That will be fairly enlightening as well.”
“95% of eligible programs participated in the trial, showing overwhelming support from the community for bringing high level data to this question. There had never before been a randomized trial nationally on this topic and for understanding and testing the notion of flexibility. They saw a need for both of those things.”
ACGME paid for the work, along with the American Board of Surgery and the American College of Surgeons. Dr. Bilimoria and five other authors reported payments from ACGME and the other entities.
UPDATE: This story was updated 2/2/16
What do the results of [this] trial mean for ACGME policy on resident duty hours? The authors conclude, as will many surgeons, that surgical training programs should be afforded more flexibility in applying work-hour rules. This interpretation implicitly places the burden of proof on the ACGME. Thus, because the [trial] found no evidence that removing restrictions on resident shift length and time off between shifts was harmful to patients, programs should have more autonomy to train residents as they choose.
I reach a different conclusion. The [trial] effectively debunks concerns that patients will suffer as a result of increased handoffs and breaks in the continuity of care. Rather than backtrack on the ACGME duty-hour rules, surgical leaders should focus on developing safe, resilient health systems that do not depend on overworked resident physicians. They also should recognize the changing expectations of postmillennial learners. To many current residents and medical students, 80-hour (or even 72-hour) work weeks and 24-hour shifts probably seem long enough. Although few surgical residents would ever acknowledge this publicly, I’m sure that many love to hear, “We can take care of this case without you. Go home, see your family, and come in fresh tomorrow.”
Dr. John Birkmeyer is professor of surgery at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. He wasn’t involved in the study; his comments appeared in an editorial (N Eng J Med. 2016 Feb 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1516572).
What do the results of [this] trial mean for ACGME policy on resident duty hours? The authors conclude, as will many surgeons, that surgical training programs should be afforded more flexibility in applying work-hour rules. This interpretation implicitly places the burden of proof on the ACGME. Thus, because the [trial] found no evidence that removing restrictions on resident shift length and time off between shifts was harmful to patients, programs should have more autonomy to train residents as they choose.
I reach a different conclusion. The [trial] effectively debunks concerns that patients will suffer as a result of increased handoffs and breaks in the continuity of care. Rather than backtrack on the ACGME duty-hour rules, surgical leaders should focus on developing safe, resilient health systems that do not depend on overworked resident physicians. They also should recognize the changing expectations of postmillennial learners. To many current residents and medical students, 80-hour (or even 72-hour) work weeks and 24-hour shifts probably seem long enough. Although few surgical residents would ever acknowledge this publicly, I’m sure that many love to hear, “We can take care of this case without you. Go home, see your family, and come in fresh tomorrow.”
Dr. John Birkmeyer is professor of surgery at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. He wasn’t involved in the study; his comments appeared in an editorial (N Eng J Med. 2016 Feb 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1516572).
What do the results of [this] trial mean for ACGME policy on resident duty hours? The authors conclude, as will many surgeons, that surgical training programs should be afforded more flexibility in applying work-hour rules. This interpretation implicitly places the burden of proof on the ACGME. Thus, because the [trial] found no evidence that removing restrictions on resident shift length and time off between shifts was harmful to patients, programs should have more autonomy to train residents as they choose.
I reach a different conclusion. The [trial] effectively debunks concerns that patients will suffer as a result of increased handoffs and breaks in the continuity of care. Rather than backtrack on the ACGME duty-hour rules, surgical leaders should focus on developing safe, resilient health systems that do not depend on overworked resident physicians. They also should recognize the changing expectations of postmillennial learners. To many current residents and medical students, 80-hour (or even 72-hour) work weeks and 24-hour shifts probably seem long enough. Although few surgical residents would ever acknowledge this publicly, I’m sure that many love to hear, “We can take care of this case without you. Go home, see your family, and come in fresh tomorrow.”
Dr. John Birkmeyer is professor of surgery at the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. He wasn’t involved in the study; his comments appeared in an editorial (N Eng J Med. 2016 Feb 2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMe1516572).
JACKSONVILLE, FLA. – Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) rules that shortened surgery resident shifts and expanded breaks didn’t improve patient safety or surgery resident well-being in a trial presented at the Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons Academic Surgical Congress.
“This national, prospective, randomized trial showed that flexible, less-restrictive duty-hour policies for surgical residents were noninferior to standard ACGME duty-hour policies,” wrote Dr. Karl Bilimoria, associate surgery professor at Northwestern University, Chicago, and associates. The work was published simultaneously Feb. 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1515724).
Recent ACGME residency reforms were meant to reduce fatigue-related errors, but there have been concerns that they have come at the cost of increased handoffs and reduced education.
To get a handle on the situation, the investigators randomized 59 teaching-hospital surgery programs to standard ACGME duty hours and 58 others to a freer approach in the 2014-2015 academic year. Residents weren’t allowed to work more than 80 hours per week in either group, but hospitals in the flexible-hour arm were allowed to push residents past ACGME policy, working first-year residents longer than 16 hours per shift and others more than 28 hours, with breaks of less than 14 hours after 24-hour shifts and less than 8-10 hours after shorter ones.
Among the 138,691 adult general surgery cases during the academic year, there was no increase in 30-day rates of postoperative deaths or serious complications in the flexible group (9.1% vs. 9.0% with standard policy, P = .92) or secondary postoperative outcomes, based on risk-adjusted data from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP).
The 4,330 residents in the study filled out a multiple-choice questionnaire midway through the project in January 2015. Those in the flexible group said they weren’t significantly unhappier with the quality of their education (11.0% vs. 10.7% in the standard group, P = .86) or well-being (14.9% and 12.0%, P = .10). The investigators didn’t report the lengths of shifts or breaks.
There were no significant differences in resident-reported perceptions of fatigue on personal or patient safety. Residents in the flexible group were less likely to report leaving an operation (7.0% vs. 13.2%, P less than .001) or handing off patients with active issues (32% vs. 46.3%, P less than .001).
Flexible duty-hour residents “noted numerous benefits with respect to nearly all aspects of patient safety, continuity of care, surgical training, and professionalism. However, residents reported that less-restrictive duty-hour policies had a negative effect on [their] time with family and friends, time for extracurricular activities, rest, and health. Importantly … residents’ satisfaction with overall well-being did not differ significantly between study groups,” Dr. Karl Bilimoria and associates concluded.
The investigators “did not specifically collect data on needle sticks and car accidents, because these are notoriously challenging outcomes to capture in surveys,” they noted.
In an interview, Dr. Bilimoria commented, “Increasingly over time we’ve had more regulations of duty hours, and with each set of regulations the surgical community became increasingly concerned about patient handoffs and continuity of care, so our focus was to identify those policies that we thought affected continuity of care and work with the ACGME to waive those for the centers that were in the flexible arm of the study.”
His comments on the impact on residents: “The residents very clearly noted that the flexible policy arm provided better continuity of care, allowed them to take care of their patients in a way that they wanted to and stay with their patients in the operating room and at times when their patients were unstable.”
When asked if the findings could be extrapolated to these smaller nonparticipating centers, Dr. Bilimoria responded, “We captured the majority of residents, and we’re working on an analysis now that seeks to understand what the generalizability would be to those nonparticipating programs. That will be fairly enlightening as well.”
“95% of eligible programs participated in the trial, showing overwhelming support from the community for bringing high level data to this question. There had never before been a randomized trial nationally on this topic and for understanding and testing the notion of flexibility. They saw a need for both of those things.”
ACGME paid for the work, along with the American Board of Surgery and the American College of Surgeons. Dr. Bilimoria and five other authors reported payments from ACGME and the other entities.
UPDATE: This story was updated 2/2/16
JACKSONVILLE, FLA. – Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) rules that shortened surgery resident shifts and expanded breaks didn’t improve patient safety or surgery resident well-being in a trial presented at the Association for Academic Surgery/Society of University Surgeons Academic Surgical Congress.
“This national, prospective, randomized trial showed that flexible, less-restrictive duty-hour policies for surgical residents were noninferior to standard ACGME duty-hour policies,” wrote Dr. Karl Bilimoria, associate surgery professor at Northwestern University, Chicago, and associates. The work was published simultaneously Feb. 2 in the New England Journal of Medicine (doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1515724).
Recent ACGME residency reforms were meant to reduce fatigue-related errors, but there have been concerns that they have come at the cost of increased handoffs and reduced education.
To get a handle on the situation, the investigators randomized 59 teaching-hospital surgery programs to standard ACGME duty hours and 58 others to a freer approach in the 2014-2015 academic year. Residents weren’t allowed to work more than 80 hours per week in either group, but hospitals in the flexible-hour arm were allowed to push residents past ACGME policy, working first-year residents longer than 16 hours per shift and others more than 28 hours, with breaks of less than 14 hours after 24-hour shifts and less than 8-10 hours after shorter ones.
Among the 138,691 adult general surgery cases during the academic year, there was no increase in 30-day rates of postoperative deaths or serious complications in the flexible group (9.1% vs. 9.0% with standard policy, P = .92) or secondary postoperative outcomes, based on risk-adjusted data from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP).
The 4,330 residents in the study filled out a multiple-choice questionnaire midway through the project in January 2015. Those in the flexible group said they weren’t significantly unhappier with the quality of their education (11.0% vs. 10.7% in the standard group, P = .86) or well-being (14.9% and 12.0%, P = .10). The investigators didn’t report the lengths of shifts or breaks.
There were no significant differences in resident-reported perceptions of fatigue on personal or patient safety. Residents in the flexible group were less likely to report leaving an operation (7.0% vs. 13.2%, P less than .001) or handing off patients with active issues (32% vs. 46.3%, P less than .001).
Flexible duty-hour residents “noted numerous benefits with respect to nearly all aspects of patient safety, continuity of care, surgical training, and professionalism. However, residents reported that less-restrictive duty-hour policies had a negative effect on [their] time with family and friends, time for extracurricular activities, rest, and health. Importantly … residents’ satisfaction with overall well-being did not differ significantly between study groups,” Dr. Karl Bilimoria and associates concluded.
The investigators “did not specifically collect data on needle sticks and car accidents, because these are notoriously challenging outcomes to capture in surveys,” they noted.
In an interview, Dr. Bilimoria commented, “Increasingly over time we’ve had more regulations of duty hours, and with each set of regulations the surgical community became increasingly concerned about patient handoffs and continuity of care, so our focus was to identify those policies that we thought affected continuity of care and work with the ACGME to waive those for the centers that were in the flexible arm of the study.”
His comments on the impact on residents: “The residents very clearly noted that the flexible policy arm provided better continuity of care, allowed them to take care of their patients in a way that they wanted to and stay with their patients in the operating room and at times when their patients were unstable.”
When asked if the findings could be extrapolated to these smaller nonparticipating centers, Dr. Bilimoria responded, “We captured the majority of residents, and we’re working on an analysis now that seeks to understand what the generalizability would be to those nonparticipating programs. That will be fairly enlightening as well.”
“95% of eligible programs participated in the trial, showing overwhelming support from the community for bringing high level data to this question. There had never before been a randomized trial nationally on this topic and for understanding and testing the notion of flexibility. They saw a need for both of those things.”
ACGME paid for the work, along with the American Board of Surgery and the American College of Surgeons. Dr. Bilimoria and five other authors reported payments from ACGME and the other entities.
UPDATE: This story was updated 2/2/16
AT THE ACADEMIC SURGICAL CONGRESS
Key clinical point: Patient outcome were not affected by the duty hours of general surgery residents.
Major finding: There was no increase in 30-day rates of postoperative deaths or serious complications when residents exceeded Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) hours (9.1% vs. 9.0% for residents not going beyond ACGME policy, P = .92).
Data source: 1-year randomized trial of 117 general surgery residency programs in the United States.
Disclosures: ACGME paid for the work, along with the American Board of Surgery and the American College of Surgeons. The lead author and five others reported payments from those groups.
A better way to relieve rib fracture pain in the ICU
SAN ANTONIO – A new pain relief option for multiple rib fractures means that you might not have to wait around anymore for anesthesiology to place thoracic epidurals.
It’s called posterior paramedian subrhomboidal (PoPS) analgesia. A skin incision is made below the lowest fractured rib just paramedian to the spinus processes; a tunneling device is then used to work a catheter upwards under the rhomboids just past the highest fractured rib. The catheter has multiple openings along its length – like a sprinkler hose – so analgesic bathes the intercostal nerves as it runs down from a reservoir into the patient. The reservoir can be set to a desired flow rate or for on-demand use (ON-Q Pain Relief System – Halyard).
A pilot study at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, found that pain control from PoPS was at least equivalent to standard thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), and that the system can be placed by a variety of hospital staff, not just anesthesiologists.
The 11 PoPS patients also used fewer rescue narcotics than the 19 TEA patients and had less hypotension. Because they weren’t at risk for epidural hematomas, they started venous thromboembolism prophylaxis without delay and at full dose.
“Our results are very promising. PoPS provides pain control similar to that of TEA,” with several “other benefits. You are not relying on one specialty for pain control,” so patients probably get faster relief. “PoPS can also be placed in patients whose injuries prohibit TEA, such as those with spinal cord injuries or increased intracranial pressure,” said investigator Dr. Casey Shelley, a University of Kansas general surgery resident.
PoPS was placed in the study either by anesthesiologists or by a trauma surgeon who practiced placement beforehand in the cadaver lab. The do-it-yourself potential for surgeons “is key. Most of us trauma surgeons are sick of begging anesthesiologists to come place thoracic epidurals,” said an audience member after Dr. Shelley’s presentation at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
Ropivacaine 0.2% was used in both PoPS and TEA patients, all of whom had at least three broken ribs.
Median pain scores dropped from 8.5 to 2.5 on a 10-point scale an hour after PoPS placement, versus a median drop from 8 to 5 points an hour after TEA (P = .03). Although not statistically significant, median pain scores were about 1.5 points better with PoPS over the next several days, hovering around 3.5 versus around 5 points with TEA. Anesthesiology “usually won’t place high thoracic epidurals. With PoPS, you can tunnel up as far as you need to go to get to higher ribs,” which might explain the better pain control, Dr. Shelley said.
PoPS patients used about 70 mg/day oral morphine equivalents versus about 90 mg/day with TEA through day 6, but again the difference was not statistically significant. Even so, it might explain why six TEA patients (32%) were hypotensive over that time, compared with two PoPS patients (18%).
PoPS patients were a little older on average (mean 63 versus 55 years), with more fractured ribs (mean eight versus seven), and higher Injury Severity Scale scores (mean 20 versus 16). They were also more likely to have bilateral fractures, longer ICU stays (mean 4.9 versus 3.1 days), and longer overall lengths of stay (mean 14.8 versus 9.8 days), but none of those trends were statistically significant.
Both groups had mean chest Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of 3, and there were no statistical differences in daily spirometry readings. The majority of patients in both groups were men.
Favorable results were also reported in 2010 for ON-Q rib pain control, but the investigators did not compare the system to TEA (World J Surg. 2010 Oct;34:2359-62).
Dr. Shelley said Halyard was not involved in the study, and that she has no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – A new pain relief option for multiple rib fractures means that you might not have to wait around anymore for anesthesiology to place thoracic epidurals.
It’s called posterior paramedian subrhomboidal (PoPS) analgesia. A skin incision is made below the lowest fractured rib just paramedian to the spinus processes; a tunneling device is then used to work a catheter upwards under the rhomboids just past the highest fractured rib. The catheter has multiple openings along its length – like a sprinkler hose – so analgesic bathes the intercostal nerves as it runs down from a reservoir into the patient. The reservoir can be set to a desired flow rate or for on-demand use (ON-Q Pain Relief System – Halyard).
A pilot study at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, found that pain control from PoPS was at least equivalent to standard thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), and that the system can be placed by a variety of hospital staff, not just anesthesiologists.
The 11 PoPS patients also used fewer rescue narcotics than the 19 TEA patients and had less hypotension. Because they weren’t at risk for epidural hematomas, they started venous thromboembolism prophylaxis without delay and at full dose.
“Our results are very promising. PoPS provides pain control similar to that of TEA,” with several “other benefits. You are not relying on one specialty for pain control,” so patients probably get faster relief. “PoPS can also be placed in patients whose injuries prohibit TEA, such as those with spinal cord injuries or increased intracranial pressure,” said investigator Dr. Casey Shelley, a University of Kansas general surgery resident.
PoPS was placed in the study either by anesthesiologists or by a trauma surgeon who practiced placement beforehand in the cadaver lab. The do-it-yourself potential for surgeons “is key. Most of us trauma surgeons are sick of begging anesthesiologists to come place thoracic epidurals,” said an audience member after Dr. Shelley’s presentation at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
Ropivacaine 0.2% was used in both PoPS and TEA patients, all of whom had at least three broken ribs.
Median pain scores dropped from 8.5 to 2.5 on a 10-point scale an hour after PoPS placement, versus a median drop from 8 to 5 points an hour after TEA (P = .03). Although not statistically significant, median pain scores were about 1.5 points better with PoPS over the next several days, hovering around 3.5 versus around 5 points with TEA. Anesthesiology “usually won’t place high thoracic epidurals. With PoPS, you can tunnel up as far as you need to go to get to higher ribs,” which might explain the better pain control, Dr. Shelley said.
PoPS patients used about 70 mg/day oral morphine equivalents versus about 90 mg/day with TEA through day 6, but again the difference was not statistically significant. Even so, it might explain why six TEA patients (32%) were hypotensive over that time, compared with two PoPS patients (18%).
PoPS patients were a little older on average (mean 63 versus 55 years), with more fractured ribs (mean eight versus seven), and higher Injury Severity Scale scores (mean 20 versus 16). They were also more likely to have bilateral fractures, longer ICU stays (mean 4.9 versus 3.1 days), and longer overall lengths of stay (mean 14.8 versus 9.8 days), but none of those trends were statistically significant.
Both groups had mean chest Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of 3, and there were no statistical differences in daily spirometry readings. The majority of patients in both groups were men.
Favorable results were also reported in 2010 for ON-Q rib pain control, but the investigators did not compare the system to TEA (World J Surg. 2010 Oct;34:2359-62).
Dr. Shelley said Halyard was not involved in the study, and that she has no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – A new pain relief option for multiple rib fractures means that you might not have to wait around anymore for anesthesiology to place thoracic epidurals.
It’s called posterior paramedian subrhomboidal (PoPS) analgesia. A skin incision is made below the lowest fractured rib just paramedian to the spinus processes; a tunneling device is then used to work a catheter upwards under the rhomboids just past the highest fractured rib. The catheter has multiple openings along its length – like a sprinkler hose – so analgesic bathes the intercostal nerves as it runs down from a reservoir into the patient. The reservoir can be set to a desired flow rate or for on-demand use (ON-Q Pain Relief System – Halyard).
A pilot study at the University of Kansas, Kansas City, found that pain control from PoPS was at least equivalent to standard thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA), and that the system can be placed by a variety of hospital staff, not just anesthesiologists.
The 11 PoPS patients also used fewer rescue narcotics than the 19 TEA patients and had less hypotension. Because they weren’t at risk for epidural hematomas, they started venous thromboembolism prophylaxis without delay and at full dose.
“Our results are very promising. PoPS provides pain control similar to that of TEA,” with several “other benefits. You are not relying on one specialty for pain control,” so patients probably get faster relief. “PoPS can also be placed in patients whose injuries prohibit TEA, such as those with spinal cord injuries or increased intracranial pressure,” said investigator Dr. Casey Shelley, a University of Kansas general surgery resident.
PoPS was placed in the study either by anesthesiologists or by a trauma surgeon who practiced placement beforehand in the cadaver lab. The do-it-yourself potential for surgeons “is key. Most of us trauma surgeons are sick of begging anesthesiologists to come place thoracic epidurals,” said an audience member after Dr. Shelley’s presentation at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
Ropivacaine 0.2% was used in both PoPS and TEA patients, all of whom had at least three broken ribs.
Median pain scores dropped from 8.5 to 2.5 on a 10-point scale an hour after PoPS placement, versus a median drop from 8 to 5 points an hour after TEA (P = .03). Although not statistically significant, median pain scores were about 1.5 points better with PoPS over the next several days, hovering around 3.5 versus around 5 points with TEA. Anesthesiology “usually won’t place high thoracic epidurals. With PoPS, you can tunnel up as far as you need to go to get to higher ribs,” which might explain the better pain control, Dr. Shelley said.
PoPS patients used about 70 mg/day oral morphine equivalents versus about 90 mg/day with TEA through day 6, but again the difference was not statistically significant. Even so, it might explain why six TEA patients (32%) were hypotensive over that time, compared with two PoPS patients (18%).
PoPS patients were a little older on average (mean 63 versus 55 years), with more fractured ribs (mean eight versus seven), and higher Injury Severity Scale scores (mean 20 versus 16). They were also more likely to have bilateral fractures, longer ICU stays (mean 4.9 versus 3.1 days), and longer overall lengths of stay (mean 14.8 versus 9.8 days), but none of those trends were statistically significant.
Both groups had mean chest Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of 3, and there were no statistical differences in daily spirometry readings. The majority of patients in both groups were men.
Favorable results were also reported in 2010 for ON-Q rib pain control, but the investigators did not compare the system to TEA (World J Surg. 2010 Oct;34:2359-62).
Dr. Shelley said Halyard was not involved in the study, and that she has no disclosures.
AT THE EAST SCIENTIFIC ASSEMBLY
Key clinical point: You might not have to wait around anymore for anesthesiology to place thoracic epidurals.
Major finding: Median pain scores dropped from 8.5 to 2.5 on a 10-point scale an hour after posterior PoPS placement, versus a median drop from 8 to 5 points an hour after thoracic epidural analgesia (P = .03).
Data source: Pilot study of 30 adults with at least three fractured ribs.
Disclosures: The maker of the PoPS system was not involved in the study, and the presenter had no disclosures.
Level 1 activation reduces LOS, mortality in geriatric trauma
SAN ANTONIO – Automatically bumping elderly Level 2 trauma patients to Level 1 status reduced mortality and emergency department lengths of stay at Indiana University Health Methodist Hospital, Indianapolis.
Like trauma services elsewhere, the Methodist team is trying to figure out how best to handle the coming increase in elderly patients as the Baby Boom generation ages. It’s known that older trauma patients tend to be undertriaged. To improve the situation, “we need to respond quickly with a lot of resources up front so we don’t delay diagnosis” and treatment, said investigator Dr. Peter Hammer, assistant professor of surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
The solution Methodist has tried since October 2013 is a Level 1 response to any patient aged 70 years or older who meets Level 2 criteria, regardless of vital sign stability or injury mechanism. With Level 1, trauma attendings, residents, respiratory therapists, clinical pharmacists, and others are at the bedside within 15 minutes and CT services and operating rooms are on standby, among other measures. Compared with the 1,271 patients aged 70 years or older treated in the almost 2 years before the change, the 998 treated in the year and a half afterwards were, after controlling for age, comorbidities, and injury severity scores (ISS), more likely to leave the ED in less than 2 hours (odds ratio, 1.614; 95% confidence interval, 1.088-2.394) and less likely to die (OR, 0.689, 95% CI, 0.484-0.979).
The before and after groups were similar, with a mean age of 81 years, a mean ISS of 12.2, a high comorbidity burden, and, for most, a blunt injury: 8.3% died in the before group, versus 7.6% in the after group. The shorter ED stays occurred despite a nursing staff reduction in 2014. Patients who went into cardiac arrest before arrival or died in the ED were excluded from the analysis.
“A simple, focused intervention of a higher level of trauma activation can decrease ED length of stay and in-hospital mortality in elderly trauma patients,” Dr. Hammer said at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
Among many initiatives as many trauma centers gear up for aging baby boomers, others are trying age as a criteria for higher activation, too, and recent guidelines from EAST recommend a lower threshold for trauma activation for patients 65 years or older, among other steps.
With more expertise and resources to brought to bear, it’s not surprising that Level 1 patients left the ED sooner, but it’s unclear what role that played in reducing mortality. “I wouldn’t hazard [to say] that shorter lengths of stay necessarily” saved lives, Dr. Hammer said.
Before the intervention, just 4.8% of geriatric patients left the ED within 2 hours, versus 6.5% afterwards. The numbers are low because, “as in most hospitals, there are more trauma patients than beds. [Reducing ED] length or stay [remains] an ongoing project” at Methodist, and not just for the elderly. “The ED is always overcrowded come afternoon and into the evening,” Dr. Hammer said.
That’s one of the reasons management supported the project. “They like the concept of getting patients moved through quickly. We have a lot of resources in the ED, so there doesn’t seem to be much of a slowdown” with increased Level 1 activation. It probably costs more up front, “but the hope is we’ll save money on the back end with lower mortality and shorter ED stays,” he said.
The investigators had no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – Automatically bumping elderly Level 2 trauma patients to Level 1 status reduced mortality and emergency department lengths of stay at Indiana University Health Methodist Hospital, Indianapolis.
Like trauma services elsewhere, the Methodist team is trying to figure out how best to handle the coming increase in elderly patients as the Baby Boom generation ages. It’s known that older trauma patients tend to be undertriaged. To improve the situation, “we need to respond quickly with a lot of resources up front so we don’t delay diagnosis” and treatment, said investigator Dr. Peter Hammer, assistant professor of surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
The solution Methodist has tried since October 2013 is a Level 1 response to any patient aged 70 years or older who meets Level 2 criteria, regardless of vital sign stability or injury mechanism. With Level 1, trauma attendings, residents, respiratory therapists, clinical pharmacists, and others are at the bedside within 15 minutes and CT services and operating rooms are on standby, among other measures. Compared with the 1,271 patients aged 70 years or older treated in the almost 2 years before the change, the 998 treated in the year and a half afterwards were, after controlling for age, comorbidities, and injury severity scores (ISS), more likely to leave the ED in less than 2 hours (odds ratio, 1.614; 95% confidence interval, 1.088-2.394) and less likely to die (OR, 0.689, 95% CI, 0.484-0.979).
The before and after groups were similar, with a mean age of 81 years, a mean ISS of 12.2, a high comorbidity burden, and, for most, a blunt injury: 8.3% died in the before group, versus 7.6% in the after group. The shorter ED stays occurred despite a nursing staff reduction in 2014. Patients who went into cardiac arrest before arrival or died in the ED were excluded from the analysis.
“A simple, focused intervention of a higher level of trauma activation can decrease ED length of stay and in-hospital mortality in elderly trauma patients,” Dr. Hammer said at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
Among many initiatives as many trauma centers gear up for aging baby boomers, others are trying age as a criteria for higher activation, too, and recent guidelines from EAST recommend a lower threshold for trauma activation for patients 65 years or older, among other steps.
With more expertise and resources to brought to bear, it’s not surprising that Level 1 patients left the ED sooner, but it’s unclear what role that played in reducing mortality. “I wouldn’t hazard [to say] that shorter lengths of stay necessarily” saved lives, Dr. Hammer said.
Before the intervention, just 4.8% of geriatric patients left the ED within 2 hours, versus 6.5% afterwards. The numbers are low because, “as in most hospitals, there are more trauma patients than beds. [Reducing ED] length or stay [remains] an ongoing project” at Methodist, and not just for the elderly. “The ED is always overcrowded come afternoon and into the evening,” Dr. Hammer said.
That’s one of the reasons management supported the project. “They like the concept of getting patients moved through quickly. We have a lot of resources in the ED, so there doesn’t seem to be much of a slowdown” with increased Level 1 activation. It probably costs more up front, “but the hope is we’ll save money on the back end with lower mortality and shorter ED stays,” he said.
The investigators had no disclosures.
SAN ANTONIO – Automatically bumping elderly Level 2 trauma patients to Level 1 status reduced mortality and emergency department lengths of stay at Indiana University Health Methodist Hospital, Indianapolis.
Like trauma services elsewhere, the Methodist team is trying to figure out how best to handle the coming increase in elderly patients as the Baby Boom generation ages. It’s known that older trauma patients tend to be undertriaged. To improve the situation, “we need to respond quickly with a lot of resources up front so we don’t delay diagnosis” and treatment, said investigator Dr. Peter Hammer, assistant professor of surgery at Indiana University, Indianapolis.
The solution Methodist has tried since October 2013 is a Level 1 response to any patient aged 70 years or older who meets Level 2 criteria, regardless of vital sign stability or injury mechanism. With Level 1, trauma attendings, residents, respiratory therapists, clinical pharmacists, and others are at the bedside within 15 minutes and CT services and operating rooms are on standby, among other measures. Compared with the 1,271 patients aged 70 years or older treated in the almost 2 years before the change, the 998 treated in the year and a half afterwards were, after controlling for age, comorbidities, and injury severity scores (ISS), more likely to leave the ED in less than 2 hours (odds ratio, 1.614; 95% confidence interval, 1.088-2.394) and less likely to die (OR, 0.689, 95% CI, 0.484-0.979).
The before and after groups were similar, with a mean age of 81 years, a mean ISS of 12.2, a high comorbidity burden, and, for most, a blunt injury: 8.3% died in the before group, versus 7.6% in the after group. The shorter ED stays occurred despite a nursing staff reduction in 2014. Patients who went into cardiac arrest before arrival or died in the ED were excluded from the analysis.
“A simple, focused intervention of a higher level of trauma activation can decrease ED length of stay and in-hospital mortality in elderly trauma patients,” Dr. Hammer said at the annual scientific assembly of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.
Among many initiatives as many trauma centers gear up for aging baby boomers, others are trying age as a criteria for higher activation, too, and recent guidelines from EAST recommend a lower threshold for trauma activation for patients 65 years or older, among other steps.
With more expertise and resources to brought to bear, it’s not surprising that Level 1 patients left the ED sooner, but it’s unclear what role that played in reducing mortality. “I wouldn’t hazard [to say] that shorter lengths of stay necessarily” saved lives, Dr. Hammer said.
Before the intervention, just 4.8% of geriatric patients left the ED within 2 hours, versus 6.5% afterwards. The numbers are low because, “as in most hospitals, there are more trauma patients than beds. [Reducing ED] length or stay [remains] an ongoing project” at Methodist, and not just for the elderly. “The ED is always overcrowded come afternoon and into the evening,” Dr. Hammer said.
That’s one of the reasons management supported the project. “They like the concept of getting patients moved through quickly. We have a lot of resources in the ED, so there doesn’t seem to be much of a slowdown” with increased Level 1 activation. It probably costs more up front, “but the hope is we’ll save money on the back end with lower mortality and shorter ED stays,” he said.
The investigators had no disclosures.
AT THE EAST SCIENTIFIC ASSEMBLY
Key clinical point: Consider treating Level 2 elderly trauma patients at Level 1 status.
Major finding: The 998 Level 2 elderly trauma patients treated as Level 1, after controlling for age, comorbidities, and injury severity scores, were more likely to leave the ED in less than 2 hours and were less likely to die, compared with patients treated in the previous 2 years.
Data source: More than 2,000 trauma patients aged 70 years or older.
Disclosures: The investigators had no disclosures.