No abstract

BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a statewide stay-at-home (SAH) order in California beginning March 19, 2020, forcing large-scale behavioral changes and taking an emotional and economic toll. The effects of SAH orders on the trauma population remain unknown. We hypothesized an increase in rates of penetrating trauma, gunshot wounds, suicide attempts, and domestic violence in the Southern California trauma population after the SAH order. METHODS:A multicenter retrospective analysis of all trauma patients presenting to 11 American College of Surgeons levels I and II trauma centers spanning seven counties in California was performed. Demographic data, injury characteristics, clinical data, and outcomes were collected. Patients were divided into three groups based on injury date: before SAH from

County compared with the surrounding rural communities in 2020: 95 of 175 cases (54.29%) in 2020 compared with 218 of 532 from 2015 to 2019 (p = 0.0028, Fisher's exact test). Conversely, we found an increase in accidental penetrating trauma within the surrounding rural communities: 100 of 165 cases (60.61%) in 2020 compared with 327 of 453 from 2015 to 2019 (p = 0.0078, Fisher's exact test).Similar to the findings of Yeates et al., 1 we found an increased rate of penetrating trauma in 2020, particularly, a significant increase in assaultive penetrating trauma in Lubbock County, relative to the surrounding rural communities. These data suggest that factors unique to the year 2020 may have affected urban communities disproportionately to rural communities. It is possible that regulations around social distancing created a greater negative impact on mental health, social well-being, and cohesion in urban versus rural communities; it is also possible that financial constraints had a different impact in different regions. Variations in injury patterns in 2020 have anecdotally been shared by many trauma centers across the country; compiling these patterns into a snapshot of the pandemic impact may help inform future decisions regarding trauma prevention during a public health crisis. ACKNOWLEDGMENTSWe thank Amber Tucker, MSN, RN, for her support in providing information from the institutional trauma and burn registry; Silvia Jakubski, MS, for her assistance with statistical analysis; and Hector Garcia, MEng, for his review.

Purpose There is mounting evidence that surgical patients with COVID-19 have higher morbidity and mortality than patients without COVID-19. Infection is prevalent amongst the trauma population, but any effect of COVID-19 on trauma patients is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the effect of COVID-19 on a trauma population, hypothesizing increased mortality and pulmonary complications for COVID-19-positive (COVID) trauma patients compared to propensity-matched COVID-19-negative (non-COVID) patients. Methods A retrospective analysis of trauma patients presenting to 11 Level-I and II trauma centers in California between 1/1/2019–6/30/2019 and 1/1/2020–6/30/2020 was performed. A 1:2 propensity score model was used to match COVID to non-COVID trauma patients using age, blunt/penetrating mechanism, injury severity score, Glasgow Coma Scale score, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, and heart rate. Outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results A total of 20,448 trauma patients were identified during the study period. 53 COVID trauma patients were matched with 106 non-COVID trauma patients. COVID patients had higher rates of mortality (9.4% vs 1.9%, p = 0.029) and pneumonia (7.5% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.011), as well as a longer mean length of stay (LOS) (7.47 vs 3.28 days, p < 0.001) and intensive care unit LOS (1.40 vs 0.80 days, p = 0.008), compared to non-COVID patients. Conclusion This multicenter retrospective study found increased rates of mortality and pneumonia, as well as a longer LOS, for COVID trauma patients compared to a propensity-matched cohort of non-COVID patients. Further studies are warranted to validate these findings and to elucidate the underlying pathways responsible for higher mortality in COVID trauma patients.

Purpose The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in increased penetrating trauma and decreased length of stay (LOS) amongst the adult trauma population, findings important for resource allocation. Studies regarding the pediatric trauma population are sparse and mostly single-center. This multicenter study examined pediatric trauma patients, hypothesizing increased penetrating trauma and decreased LOS after the 3/19/2020 stay-at-home (SAH) orders. Methods A multicenter retrospective analysis of trauma patients ≤ 17 years old presenting to 11 centers in California was performed. Demographic data, injury characteristics, and outcomes were collected. Patients were divided into three groups based on injury date: 3/19/2019–6/30/2019 (CONTROL), 1/1/2020–3/18/2020 (PRE), 3/19/2020–6/30/2020 (POST). POST was compared to PRE and CONTROL in separate analyses. Results 1677 patients were identified across all time periods (CONTROL: 631, PRE: 479, POST: 567). POST penetrating trauma rates were not significantly different compared to both PRE (11.3 vs. 9.0%, p = 0.219) and CONTROL (11.3 vs. 8.2%, p = 0.075), respectively. POST had a shorter mean LOS compared to PRE (2.4 vs. 3.3 days, p = 0.002) and CONTROL (2.4 vs. 3.4 days, p = 0.002). POST was also not significantly different than either group regarding intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, ventilator days, and mortality (all p > 0.05). Conclusions This multicenter retrospective study demonstrated no difference in penetrating trauma rates among pediatric patients after SAH orders but did identify a shorter LOS.

No abstract

Background COVID-19’s pulmonary manifestations are broad, ranging from pneumonia with no supplemental oxygen requirements to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with acute respiratory failure (ARF). In response, new oxygenation strategies and therapeutics have been developed, but their large-scale effects on outcomes in severe COVID-19 patients remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to examine the trends in mortality, mechanical ventilation, and cost over the first six months of the pandemic for adult COVID-19 patients in the US who developed ARDS or ARF. Methods and findings The Vizient Clinical Data Base, a national database comprised of administrative, clinical, and financial data from academic medical centers, was queried for patients ≥ 18-years-old with COVID-19 and either ARDS or ARF admitted between 3/2020-8/2020. Demographics, mechanical ventilation, length of stay, total cost, mortality, and discharge status were collected. Mann-Kendall tests were used to assess for significant monotonic trends in total cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over time. Chi-square tests were used to compare mortality rates between March-May and June-August. 110,223 adult patients with COVID-19 ARDS or ARF were identified. Mean length of stay was 12.1±13.3 days and mean total cost was $35,991±32,496. Mechanical ventilation rates were 34.1% and in-hospital mortality was 22.5%. Mean cost trended downward over time (p = 0.02) from $55,275 (March) to $18,211 (August). Mechanical ventilation rates trended down (p<0.01) from 53.8% (March) to 20.3% (August). Overall mortality rates also decreased (p<0.01) from 28.4% (March) to 13.7% (August). Mortality rates in mechanically ventilated patients were similar over time (p = 0.45), but mortality in patients not requiring mechanical ventilation decreased from March-May compared to June-July (13.5% vs 4.6%, p<0.01). Conclusions This study describes the outcomes of a large cohort with COVID-19 ARDS or ARF and the subsequent decrease in cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over the first 6 months of the pandemic in the US.

Patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Because of concerns of worsening intracranial hemorrhage, clinicians are hesitant to start VTE chemoprophylaxis in this population. We hypothesized that ACS Level I trauma centers would be more aggressive with VTE chemoprophylaxis in adults with severe TBI than Level II centers. We also predicted that Level I centers would have a lower risk of VTE. We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010–2016) database for patients with Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of 4 and 5 of the head and compared them based on treating the hospital trauma level. Of 204,895 patients with severe TBI, 143,818 (70.2%) were treated at Level I centers and 61,077 (29.8%) at Level II centers. The Level I cohort had a higher rate of VTE chemoprophylaxis use (43.2% vs 23.3%, P < 0.001) and a shorter median time to chemoprophylaxis (61.9 vs 85.9 hours, P < 0.001). Although Level I trauma centers started VTE chemoprophylaxis more often and earlier than Level II centers, there was no difference in the risk of VTE ( P = 0.414) after controlling for covariates. Future prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the timing, safety, and efficacy of early VTE chemoprophylaxis in severe TBI patients.