Alan Cook

Hemothorax is a collection of blood in the pleural cavity usually from traumatic injury. A chest x-ray has historically been the imaging modality of choice upon arrival to the hospital. The sensitivity and specificity of point-of-care ultrasound, specifically through the Extended Focal Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (eFAST) protocol has been significant enough to warrant inclusion in most Level 1 trauma centers as an adjunct to radiographs. If the size or severity of a hemothorax warrants intervention, tube thoracostomy has been and still remains the treatment of choice. Most cases of hemothorax will resolve with tube thoracostomy. If residual blood remains within the pleural cavity after tube thoracostomy, it is then considered to be a retained hemothorax (RH), with significant risks for developing late complications such as empyema and fibrothorax. Once late complications occur, morbidity and mortality increase dramatically, and the only definitive treatment is surgery. In order to avoid surgery, research has been focused on removing an RH before it progresses pathologically. The most promising therapy consists of fibrinolytic, which are infused into the pleural space, disrupting the hemothorax, allowing for further drainage. Although significant progress has been made, additional trials are needed to further define the dosing and pharmacokinetics of fibrinolytics in this setting. If medical therapy and early procedures fail to resolve the RH, surgery is usually indicated. Surgery historically consisted solely of thoracotomy but has been largely replaced in nonemergent situations by video-assisted thoracoscopy, a minimally invasive technique that shows considerable improvement in the patients’ recovery and pain postoperatively. Should all prior attempts to resolve the hemothorax fail, then open thoracotomy may be indicated.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) incidence is used as a quality measure. We hypothesized that patient and provider factors accounted for the higher incidence of VAP in trauma patients compared with other critically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a 2-year study of all intubated adult patients at our Trauma Center. VAP was identified according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Groups were compared for the incidence of VAP and outcomes. RESULTS: The cohort of 2,591 patients included 511 trauma patients and 2,080 nontrauma patients. VAP occurred in 161 patients and more frequently in trauma patients (17.8% vs. 3.4%, p < 0.001). The overall death rate (17.4% vs. 9.8%, p < 0.001) and the death rate for VAP patients (31.4% vs. 11%, p = 0.002) was higher in the nontrauma group. Bronchoalveolar lavage was performed more frequently in the trauma patient group (22.1% vs. 8.9%, p < 0.001), and gram-negative organisms were isolated more commonly in trauma patients (65.9% vs. 30%, p < 0.001), respectively. VAP occurred earlier among the trauma group (mean 8.9 days vs. 14.1 days, p < 0.001). Trauma represented an odds ratio of 3.9 (95% confidence interval 2.4-6.3, p < 0.001) for the development of VAP. CONCLUSION: The incidence of VAP is greatest among trauma patients at our institution. The increased use of bronchoalveolar lavage, the earlier onset of VAP, and the higher incidence of gram-negative pneumonias suggest that both patient and provider factors may influence this phenomenon. VAP was associated with increased mortality in the nontrauma group only. These factors should be considered before VAP is applied as a quality indicator.

BACKGROUND: Performance benchmarking requires accurate measurement of injury severity. Despite its shortcomings, the Injury Severity Score (ISS) remains the industry standard 40 years after its creation. A new severity measure, the Trauma Mortality Prediction Model (TMPM), uses either the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) or DRG International Classification of Diseases-9th Rev. (ICD-9) lexicons and may better quantify injury severity compared with ISS. We compared the performance of TMPM with ISS and other measures of injury severity in a single cohort of patients. METHODS: We included 337,359 patient records with injuries reliably described in both the AIS and the ICD-9 lexicons from the National Trauma Data Bank. Five injury severity measures (ISS, maximum AIS score, New Injury Severity Score [NISS], ICD-9-Based Injury Severity Score [ICISS], TMPM) were computed using either the AIS or ICD-9 codes. These measures were compared for discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve), an estimate of proximity to a model that perfectly predicts the outcome (Akaike information criterion), and model calibration curves. RESULTS: TMPM demonstrated superior receiver operating characteristic curve, Akaike information criterion, and calibration using either the AIS or ICD-9 lexicons. Calibration plots demonstrate the monotonic characteristics of the TMPM models contrasted by the nonmonotonic features of the other prediction models. CONCLUSION: Severity measures were more accurate with the AIS lexicon rather than ICD-9. NISS proved superior to ISS in either lexicon. Since NISS is simpler to compute, it should replace ISS when a quick estimate of injury severity is required for AIS-coded injuries. Calibration curves suggest that the nonmonotonic nature of ISS may undermine its performance. TMPM demonstrated superior overall mortality prediction compared with all other models including ISS whether the AIS or ICD-9 lexicons were used. Because TMPM provides an absolute probability of death, it may allow clinicians to communicate more precisely with one another and with patients and families. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Disagnostic study, level I; prognostic study, level II.