ScholarWorksIndianapolis
  • Communities & Collections
  • Browse ScholarWorks
  • English
  • Català
  • Čeština
  • Deutsch
  • Español
  • Français
  • Gàidhlig
  • Italiano
  • Latviešu
  • Magyar
  • Nederlands
  • Polski
  • Português
  • Português do Brasil
  • Suomi
  • Svenska
  • Türkçe
  • Tiếng Việt
  • Қазақ
  • বাংলা
  • हिंदी
  • Ελληνικά
  • Yкраї́нська
  • Log In
    or
    New user? Click here to register.Have you forgotten your password?
  1. Home
  2. Browse by Author

Browsing by Author "Bulger, Eileen"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
Results Per Page
Sort Options
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Comparison of Scoring Systems for Predicting Short‐ and Long‐term Survival After Trauma in Older Adults
    (Wiley, 2019) Meagher, Ashley D.; Lin, Amber; Mandell, Samuel P.; Bulger, Eileen; Newgard, Craig; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Objectives Early identification of geriatric patients at high risk for mortality is important to guide clinical care, medical decision making, palliative discussions, quality assurance, and research. We sought to identify injured older adults at highest risk for 30‐day mortality using an empirically derived scoring system from available data and to compare it with current prognostic scoring systems. Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of injured adults ≥ 65 years transported by 44 emergency medical services (EMS) agencies to 49 emergency departments in Oregon and Washington from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, with follow‐up through December 31, 2012. We matched data from EMS to Medicare, inpatient, trauma registries, and vital statistics. Using a primary outcome of 30‐day mortality, we empirically derived a new risk score using binary recursive partitioning and compared it to the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), modified frailty index, geriatric trauma outcome score (GTOS), GTOS II, and Injury Severity Score (ISS). Results There were 4,849 patients, of whom 234 (4.8%) died within 30 days and 1,040 (21.5%) died within 1 year. The derived score, the geriatric trauma risk indicator (GTRI; emergent airway or CCI ≥ 2), had 87.2% sensitivity (95% confidence interval [CI] = 83.0% to 91.5%) and 30.6% specificity (95% CI = 29.3% to 31.9%) for 30‐day mortality (area under the receiving operating characteristic curve [AUROC] = 0.589, 95% CI = 0.566 to 0.611). AUROC values for other scoring systems ranged from 0.592 to 0.678. When the sensitivity for each existing score was held at 90%, specificity values ranged from 7.5% (ISS) to 30.6% (GTRI). Conclusions Older, injured adults transported by EMS to a large variety of trauma and nontrauma hospitals were more likely to die within 30 days if they required emergent airway management or had a higher comorbidity burden. When compared to other risk measures and holding sensitivity constant near 90%, the GTRI had higher specificity, despite a lower AUROC. Using GTOS II or the GTRI may better identify high‐risk older adults than traditional scores, such as ISS, but identification of an ideal prognostic tool remains elusive.
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A management algorithm for patients with intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC)
    (Springer, 2019-12-01) Hawryluk, Gregory W. J.; Aguilera, Sergio; Buki, Andras; Bulger, Eileen; Citerio, Giuseppe; Cooper, D. Jamie; Arrastia, Ramon Diaz; Diringer, Michael; Figaji, Anthony; Gao, Guoyi; Geocadin, Romergryko; Ghajar, Jamshid; Harris, Odette; Hoffer, Alan; Hutchinson, Peter; Joseph, Mathew; Kitagawa, Ryan; Manley, Geoffrey; Mayer, Stephan; Menon, David K.; Meyfroidt, Geert; Michael, Daniel B.; Oddo, Mauro; Okonkwo, David; Patel, Mayur; Robertson, Claudia; Rosenfeld, Jeffrey V.; Rubiano, Andres M.; Sahuquillo, Juan; Servadei, Franco; Shutter, Lori; Stein, Deborah; Stocchetti, Nino; Taccone, Fabio Silvio; Timmons, Shelly; Tsai, Eve; Ullman, Jamie S.; Vespa, Paul; Videtta, Walter; Wright, David W.; Zammit, Christopher; Chesnut, Randall M.; Neurological Surgery, School of Medicine
    Background Management algorithms for adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) were omitted in later editions of the Brain Trauma Foundation’s sTBI Management Guidelines, as they were not evidence-based. Methods We used a Delphi-method-based consensus approach to address management of sTBI patients undergoing intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Forty-two experienced, clinically active sTBI specialists from six continents comprised the panel. Eight surveys iterated queries and comments. An in-person meeting included whole- and small-group discussions and blinded voting. Consensus required 80% agreement. We developed heatmaps based on a traffic-light model where panelists’ decision tendencies were the focus of recommendations. Results We provide comprehensive algorithms for ICP-monitor-based adult sTBI management. Consensus established 18 interventions as fundamental and ten treatments not to be used. We provide a three-tier algorithm for treating elevated ICP. Treatments within a tier are considered empirically equivalent. Higher tiers involve higher risk therapies. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 include 10, 4, and 3 interventions, respectively. We include inter-tier considerations, and recommendations for critical neuroworsening to assist the recognition and treatment of declining patients. Novel elements include guidance for autoregulation-based ICP treatment based on MAP Challenge results, and two heatmaps to guide (1) ICP-monitor removal and (2) consideration of sedation holidays for neurological examination. Conclusions Our modern and comprehensive sTBI-management protocol is designed to assist clinicians managing sTBI patients monitored with ICP-monitors alone. Consensus-based (class III evidence), it provides management recommendations based on combined expert opinion. It reflects neither a standard-of-care nor a substitute for thoughtful individualized management.
  • Loading...
    Thumbnail Image
    Item
    National evaluation of the association between stay-at-home orders on mechanism of injury and trauma admission volume
    (Elsevier, 2022) Thomas, Arielle C.; Campbell, Brendan T.; Subacius, Haris; Orlas, Claudia P.; Bulger, Eileen; Stewart, Ronald M.; Stey, Anne M.; Jang, Angie; Hamad, Doulia; Bilimoria, Karl Y.; Nathens, Avery B.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Background: The COVID-19 pandemic had numerous negative effects on the US healthcare system. Many states implemented stay-at-home (SAH) orders to slow COVID-19 virus transmission. We measured the association between SAH orders on the injury mechanism type and volume of trauma center admissions during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: All trauma patients aged 16 years and older who were treated at the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program participating centers from January 2018-September 2020. Weekly trauma patient volume, patient demographics, and injury characteristics were compared across the corresponding SAH time periods from each year. Patient volume was modeled using harmonic regression with a random hospital effect. Results: There were 166,773 patients admitted in 2020 after a SAH order and an average of 160,962 patients were treated over the corresponding periods in 2018-2019 in 474 centers. Patients presenting with a pre-existing condition of alcohol misuse increased (13,611 (8.3%) vs. 10,440 (6.6%), p <0.001). Assault injuries increased (19,056 (11.4%) vs. 15,605 (9.8%)) and firearm-related injuries (14,246 (8.5%) vs. 10,316 (6.4%)), p<0.001. Firearm-specific assault injuries increased (10,748 (75.5%) vs. 7,600 (74.0%)) as did firearm-specific unintentional injuries (1,318 (9.3%) vs. 830 (8.1%), p<0.001. In the month preceding the SAH orders, trauma center admissions decreased. Within a week of SAH implementation, hospital admissions increased (p<0.001) until a plateau occurred 10 weeks later above predicted levels. On regional sub-analysis, admission volume remained significantly elevated for the Midwest during weeks 11-25 after SAH order implementation, (p<0.001).
About IU Indianapolis ScholarWorks
  • Accessibility
  • Privacy Notice
  • Copyright © 2025 The Trustees of Indiana University