How Fast Can You Warm Up A Hypothermic Patient?

‘Tis the season to see hypothermic patients again! The optimal way to warm them up has been debated for years. A number of very interesting techniques have been devised. Ever wonder how fast / effective they are?

I’ve culled data from a number of sources, and here is a summary what I found. And of course, the disclaimer: “your results may vary.”

Warming Technique Rate of Rewarming
Passive external (blankets, lights) 0.5° C / hr
Active external (lights, hot water bottle) 1 – 3° C / hr
Bair Hugger 2.4° C / hr
Hot inspired air in ET tube 1° C / hr
Fluid warmer 2 – 3° C / hr
GI tract irrigation (stomach or colon, 40° C fluid, instill for 10 minutes, then evacuate) 1.5 -3° C / hr
Peritoneal lavage (instill for 20-30 minutes) 1 – 3° C / hr
Thoracic lavage (2 chest tubes, continuous flow) 3° C / hr
Continuous veno-venous rewarming 3° C / hr
Continuous arterio-venous rewarming 4.5° C / hr
Mediastinal lavage (thoracotomy) 8° C / hr
Cardiopulmonary bypass 9° C / hr
Warm water immersion (Hubbard or therapy tank) 20° C / hr

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

Why Is NPO The Default Diet For Trauma Patients?

I’ve watched it happen for years. A trauma patient is admitted with a small subarachnoid hemorrhage in the evening. The residents put in all the “usual” orders and tuck them away for the night. I am the rounder the next day, and when I saunter into the patient’s room, this is what I find:

They were made NPO. And this isn’t just an issue for patients with a small head bleed. A grade II spleen. An orbital fracture. Cervical spine injury. The list goes on.

What do these injuries have to do with your GI tract?

Here are some pointers on writing the correct diet orders on your trauma patients:

  • Is there a plan to take them to the operating room within the next 8 hours or so? If not, let them eat. If you are not sure, contact the responsible service and ask. Once you have confirmed their OR status, write the appropriate order.
  • Have they just come out of the operating room from a laparotomy? Then yes, they will have an ileus and should be NPO.
  • Are they being admitted to the ICU? If their condition is tenuous enough that they need ICU level monitoring, then they actually do belong to that small group of patients that should be kept NPO.

But here’s the biggest offender. Most trauma professionals don’t think this one through, and reflexively write for the starvation diet.

  • Do they have a condition that will likely require an emergent operation in the very near future? This one is a judgment call. But how often have you seen a patient with subarachnoid hemorrhage have an emergent craniotomy? How often do low grade solid organ injuries fail if they’ve always had stable vital signs? Or even high grade injuries? The answer is, not often at all! So let them eat!

Bottom line: Unless your patient is known to be heading to the OR soon, or just had a laparotomy, the default trauma diet should be a regular diet! 

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

New Trauma MedEd Newsletter Released Soon!

I’m just putting the finishing touches on the next newsletter. It contains everything that you really want to know about Trauma in Pregnancy. Here are the contents:

  • Predicting outcomes
  • Tips & Tricks (for EMS and physicians)
  • Imaging
  • Peri-mortem C-section: when, with what, and how?

I’m going to release this issue to subscribers on Halloween. Everyone else can pick it up here on the blog about 10 days later.

If you want to get it as soon as it is released, please subscribe by clicking here! And you can pick up back issues when you follow the link, too!

tmeimage1116

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

What You Need To Know About Frontal Sinus Fractures

Fracture of the frontal sinus is less common than other facial injuries, but can be more complex to deal with, both in the shorter and longer terms. These are generally high energy injuries, and facial impact in car crashes is the most common mechanism. Fists generally can’t cause the injury, but blunt objects like baseball bats can.

Here’s the normal anatomy:

sinus-fracture-treatment

 

Source: www.facialtraumamd.com

There are two “tables”, the anterior and the posterior. The anterior is covered with skin and a small amount of subcutaneous tissue. The posterior table is separated from the brain by the meninges.

Here’s an image of an open fracture involving both tables. Note the underlying pneumocephalus.

frontal_sinus1

A third of injuries violate the anterior table, and two thirds violate both. Posterior table fractures are very rare. A third of all patients will develop a CSF leak, typically from their nose.

These fractures may be (rarely) identified on physical exam if deformity and flattening is noted over the forehead. Most of the time, these patients undergo imaging for brain injury and the fracture is found incidentally. Once identified, go back and specifically look for a CSF leak. Clear fluid in the nose is, by definition, CSF. Don’t waste time on a beta-2 transferring (see below).

If a laceration is clearly visible over the fracture, or if a CSF leak was identified, notify your maxillofacial specialist immediately. If more than a little pneumocephalus is present, let your neurosurgeon know. Otherwise, your consults can wait until the next morning.

In general, these patients frequently require surgery for the fracture, either to restore cosmetic contours or to avoid mucocele formation. However, these are seldom needed urgently unless the fracture is an open fracture with contamination or there is a significant CSF leak. If in doubt, though, consult your specialist.

Related posts:

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

Using Your Hybrid OR For Trauma

Every hospital wants some gadget or other. First, it was a robot. Or two. Now, it’s a hybrid operating room.

lourdes-hybrid-or1

What is this, you ask? It’s a mashup of an operating room and an interventional radiology suite. It’s new. It’s big. It’s cool (literally, which is an issue for trauma surgeons).

More and more hospitals are adding hybrid rooms at the request of their vascular surgery teams. These rooms allow for both angiographic and open operative procedures, potentially at the same time. They are perfect for endovascular procedures that need some degree of hands-in work as well. They are frequently used for thoracic endovascular repair of the aorta (TEVAR), repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), and transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

These rooms would seem to be perfect for some trauma cases as well. Some injuries require a mix of interventional work and open surgery. Think complex pelvic fractures and extremity vascular injuries.

But before you go rushing off to the hybrid room with the next patient you think might benefit from it, consider these issues:

  • You must first secure access to the hybrid room. Just because you want it doesn’t mean you can get it. This room was probably built with other services in mind. You must work with them closely to set up rules and priorities. Consider questions like, can a trauma case bump an elective one?
  • Decide what specific cases can be done in the room. Don’t waste it on procedures that can be done in any old OR. Ideally, it is for multi-team cases and must take advantage of the radiographic capabilities of the hybrid room. If it doesn’t, it should be done in any other room of appropriate size.
  • Check your hardware. Make sure that anything you might attach to the hybrid table actually will attach to it. Frequently, the side rails are missing and the table thickness is different than a standard OR table. Check all of your retractor systems for compatibility. If your neurosurgeons use a skull clamp like a Mayfield, make sure it will attach to the table. If they do not, look for adapters to make it possible. Don’t discover this on your first trip to the room.
  • Watch for hypothermia! These are big rooms, and are difficult to heat up uniformly. In addition, the electronics in the room may be heat sensitive, so you may not be able to raise the temperature to the levels you are accustomed. Place heating systems under and around the patient as much as possible, warm everything that goes into them, and monitor their temp closely.
  • Treat the equipment with respect.  This stuff is delicate, and must be used by other surgeons for sensitive procedures. Don’t break it!

Related posts:

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

How To Remember Those “Classes of Hemorrhage”

The Advanced Trauma Life Support course lists “classes of hemorrhage”, and various other sources list a similar classification for shock. I’ve not been able to pinpoint where these concepts came from, exactly. But I am sure of one thing: you will be tested on it at some point in your lifetime.

Here’s the table used by the ATLS course:

classes_of_shock

The question you will always be asked is:

What class of hemorrhage (or what % of blood volume loss) is the first to demonstrate systolic hypotension?

This is important because prehospital providers and those in the ED typically rely on systolic blood pressure to figure out if their patient is in trouble.

The answer is Class III, or 30-40%. But how do you remember the damn percentages?

multiscore-maxi1

It’s easy! The numbers are all tennis scores. Here’s how to remember them:

Class I up to 15% Love – 15
Class II 15-30% 15 – 30
Class III 30-40 30 – 40
Class IV >40% Game (almost) over!

Bottom line: Never miss that question again!

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

Pan Scanning for Elderly Falls?

The last abstract for the Clinical Congress of the American College of Surgeons that I will review deals with doing a so-called “pan-scan” for ground level falls. Apparently, patients at this center have been pan-scanned for years, and they wanted to determine if it was appropriate.

This was a retrospective trauma registry review of 9 years worth of ground level falls. Patients were divided into young (18-54 years) and old (55+ years) groups. They were included in the study if they received a pan-scan.

Here are the factoids:

  • Hospital admission rates (95%) and ICU admission rates (48%) were the same for young and old
  • ISS was a little higher in the older group (9 vs 12)
  • Here are the incidence and type of injuries detected:
Young (n=328) Old (n=257)
TBI 35% 40%
C-spine 2% 2%
Blunt Cereb-vasc inj * 20% 31%
Pneumothorax 14% 15%
Abdominal injury 4% 2%
Mortality * 3% 11%

 * = statistically significant

Bottom line: There is an ongoing argument, still, regarding pan-scan vs selective scanning. The pan-scanners argue that the increased risk (much of which is delayed or intangible) is worth the extra information. This study shows that the authors did not find much difference in injury diagnosis in young vs elderly patients, with the exception of blunt cerebrovascular injury.

Most elderly patients who fall sustain injuries to the head, spine (all of it), extremities and hips. The torso is largely spared, with the exception of ribs. In my opinion, chest CT is only for identification of aortic injury, which just can’t happen from falling over. Or even down stairs. And solid organ injury is also rare in this group.

Although the future risk from radiation in an elderly patient is probably low, the risk from the IV contrast needed to see the aorta or solid organs is significant in this group. And keep in mind the dangers of screening for a low probability diagnosis. You may find something that prompts invasive and potentially more dangerous investigations of something that may never have caused a problem!

I recommend selective scanning of the head and cervical spine (if not clinically clearable), and selective conventional imaging of any other suspicious areas. If additional detail of the thoracic and/or lumbar spine are needed, specific spine CT imaging should be used without contrast.

Related posts:

Reference: Pan-scanning for ground level falls in the elderly: really? ACS Surgical Forum, trauma abstracts, 2016.

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

REBOA vs ED Thoracotomy: Which One Is Winning?

Many trauma centers are talking about REBOA (resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta), but only a few are actually doing it. And of those, only a handful are doing it regularly and closely studying how it’s working.

The RA Cowley Shock Trauma Center is one of those very few. They have integrated the preparation phase for REBOA (femoral art line insertion) into their initial resuscitation protocols. This allows them to actually perform the technique quickly in any patient who starts to go bad and meets criteria. This center has been using REBOA nearly exclusively since they began studying it  a few years ago. They have actually supplanted ED thoracotomy (EDT) with this technique, and are a leader in producing data and studies on its nuances.

They compared short term outcomes in patients suffering traumatic arrest undergoing REBOA  (2013-2015) to those in patients with EDT (2008-2013). This was a simple study, with easy to understand statistical analyses.

Here are the factoids:

  • 19 thoracotomies and 17 REBOA were performed during the study periods (this shows how uncommon these procedures are, even at a busy center)
  • Average ISS was about the same (31 vs 26). Median GCS was 3 in both groups.
  • Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) occurred in 7 EDT and 9 REBOA
  • 13 EDT and 9 REBOA patients survived long enough to get to the OR
  • Mean systolic BP after occlusion was higher after REBOA (80 vs 46 torr)
  • There was only one survivor of the 36, and they received REBOA. This patient actually discharged home. (!)

Bottom line: Shock Trauma is a very busy center, and as you can see, even their REBOA numbers are low. This is why it is so critically important that all REBOA patients be part of a study. We really need to know how well it works, who it works best in, and what the downsides are. In this study, ROSC and survival to OR were statistically identical, but blood pressure was higher with REBOA compared to cross-clamping. Survival was also the same (abysmal), with one excellent outcome in the REBOA group.

The authors believe that REBOA and EDT are equivalent in terms of the variables they looked at. But remember, there are many other factors we need to look at, including things like resource utilization and healthcare worker safety. I strongly urge every center that is performing or considering REBOA to join a multi-center trial and/or report the the REBOA registry to hasten our understanding of this procedure.

Related posts:

Reference: Paradigm shift in hemorrhagic traumaic arrest: REBOA is at least as effective as resuscitative thoracotomy with aortic crossclamping. ACS Scientific Forum, trauma abstracts, 2016.

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

CT Crystal Ball – Part 3

And yet another one of these crystal ball abstracts, all presented at the same meeting of the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress!

This one postulates that more injuries seen on CT scan might predict mortality in “older” trauma patients. Hmmm. The authors pulled info  on head CT findings, GCS, AIS Head, lengths of stay, death, functional scores, and discharge disposition. And the age had to be >45 years. Older? Hmmm.

A scoring tool was designed that gave 1 point each for subdural, epidural, subarachnoid, or intraparenchymal blood, cerebral contusion, skull fracture, brain edema/herniation, midline shift, and external trauma to the head/face. The score range was 0-8, even though there were 10 factors.

Lets look at the factoids:

  • Nearly 10 years of data were analyzed
  • 620 patients meeting criteria were identified
  • The scoring system positively correlated with all of the outcome measures
  • Independent predictors of mortality included GCS, AIS Head, and the CT score (odds ratio 1.3)
  • The CT test also “predicted” (author’s word) neursurgical intervention (odds ratio 1.2)

Bottom line: Oh boy, here we go again. Another correlation study, and a weak one at that. So if someone told you that an “older” patient (beginning after age 45) would do worse clinically the more injuries were seen in and around their head, what would you say? And why did it take 10 years of data to accumulate data on 620 patients in this age range (62 per year)? And why not test your scoring system prospectively? And run some really good statistics on the new data?  Sadly, I feel this is another run to submit an abstract and present at a meeting. But thankfully, I don’t think it will ever see the light of print.

Related posts:

Reference: Prognostication of traumatic brain injury outcomes in older trauma patients: a novel risk assessment tool based on initial cranial CT findings. ACS Scientific Forum, trauma abstracts, 2016.

captain-obvious1

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

The CT Crystal Ball – Part 2

Yesterday, I wrote about a study that looked at a CT scan-derived index that promised to predict complications and mortality based on the waist-hip ratio. It was actually a very good one. But there is another abstract being presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress this week that promises miracles from the CT scanner as well.

This next abstract looks at muscle mass in trauma patients, as measured by CT scan. Specifically, the authors measured the density of the psoas muscle by determining its cross-sectional area and its density in Hounsfeld units. They then looked at the relationship between this and 90 day mortality, complications, and disposition location.

Really? Well, here are the factoids:

  • The study involved only 152 patients age 45+ from the year 2008
  • Median ISS was only 9
  • Patients with the lowest psoas cross-sectional area had an associated significantly higher death rate
  • Those with lowest psoas density had an associated increase in complications, dependency on discharge, and mortality
  • The authors suggest that these measurements could aid in patients who would benefit from aggressive nutritional support and physical therapy, and could aid in discharge planning

Bottom line: Very different from yesterday’s abstract. This one has no grounding in prior research. It appears to be one that was just dreamed up from nowhere. And it is truly an association study. No causality can or should be inferred.

There were only 152 patients studied. From 2008. Why? Why didn’t the authors use a more contemporary dataset? There is something weird going on behind the scenes. Is this an old study that was forgotten, and is just now being conveniently dusted off for analysis and submission? A power analysis to find out how many patients should be reviewed is not possible, so it is important to err on the high side. Not just 152 patients.

If you were to just read the abstract and especially the conclusions, you really might get the wrong idea. This is a study that will not see it’s day in any journal. Read and learn from it. But don’t duplicate it!

Related post:

Reference: Computed tomography-measured psoas density predicts complications, discharge location, and mortality in trauma patients. ACS Scientific Forum, trauma abstracts, 2016.

 

 

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

The Regions Trauma Website