J Trauma
-
Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Level I versus Level II trauma centers: an outcomes-based assessment.
Trauma centers improve outcomes compared with nontrauma centers, although the relative benefit of different levels of major trauma centers (Level I vs. Level II hospitals) remains unclear. We sought to determine whether there was a difference in the patient outcome in trauma victims taken to Level I versus Level II trauma centers. ⋯ Patients taken to Level I centers had improved survival and better functional outcomes compared with injured persons taken to Level II hospitals.
-
Multicenter Study
Management of patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds: a Western Trauma Association multicenter trial.
The optimal management of hemodynamically stable, asymptomatic patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds (AASWs) remains controversial. The goal is to identify and treat injuries in a safe, cost-effective manner. Common evaluation strategies include local wound exploration (LWE)/diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL), serial clinical assessments (SCAs), and computed tomography (CT) imaging. The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate the clinical course of patients managed by the various strategies, to determine whether there are differences in associated nontherapeutic laparotomy (NONTHER LAP), emergency department (ED) discharge, or complication rates. ⋯ Shock, evisceration, and peritonitis warrant immediate LAP after AASW. Patients without these findings can be safely observed for signs or symptoms of bleeding or hollow viscus injury. To limit the number of hospital admissions, we propose a uniform strategy using LWE to ascertain the depth of penetration; the patient may be safely discharged in the absence of peritoneal violation. Peritoneal penetration, absent evidence of ongoing hemorrhage or hollow viscus injury, should not be considered an indication for LAP, but rather an indication for admission for SCAs. We suggest that a prospective multicenter trial be performed to document the safety and cost-effectiveness of such an approach.
-
Multicenter Study Comparative Study
Does de-escalation of antibiotic therapy for ventilator-associated pneumonia affect the likelihood of recurrent pneumonia or mortality in critically ill surgical patients?
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a leading cause of mortality in critically ill patients. Although previous studies have shown that de-escalation therapy (DT) of antibiotics may decrease costs and the development of resistant pathogens, minimal data have shown its effect in surgical patients or in any patients with septic shock. We hypothesized that DT for VAP was not associated with an increased rate of recurrent pneumonia (RP) or mortality in a high acuity cohort of critically ill surgical patients. ⋯ De-escalation therapy did not lead to RP or increased mortality in critically ill surgical patients with VAP. De-escalation therapy was also shown to be safe in patients with septic shock. Because of its acknowledged benefits and lack of demonstrable risks, de-escalation therapy should be used whenever possible in critically ill patients with VAP.