Browsing by Author "Bulger, Eileen M."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Nonoperative Management in Blunt Splenic Trauma: Can Shock Index Predict Failure?
    (Elsevier, 2022) Senekjian, Lara; Robinson, Bryce R. H.; Meagher, Ashley D.; Gross, Joel A.; Maier, Ronald V.; Bulger, Eileen M.; Arbabi, Saman; Cuschieri, Joseph; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Introduction: Predicting failure of nonoperative management (NOM) in splenic trauma remains elusive. Shock index (SI) is an indicator of physiologic burden in an injury but is not used as a prediction tool. The purpose of this study was to determine if elevated SI would be predictive of failure of NOM in patients with a blunt splenic injury. Methods: Adult patients admitted to a level-1 trauma center from January 2011 to April 2017 for NOM of splenic injury were reviewed. Patients were excluded if they underwent a procedure (angiography or surgery) prior to admission. The primary outcome was requiring intervention after an initial trial of noninterventional management (NIM). An SI > 0.9 at admission was considered a high risk. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to identify predicators of the failure of NOM. Findings were subsequently verified on a validation cohort of patients. Results: Five hundred and eighty-five patients met inclusion criteria; 7.4% failed NIM. On an univariate analysis, findings of pseudoaneurysm or extra-arterial contrast on computed tomography did not differentiate successful NIM versus failure (8.1% versus 14.0%, P = 0.18). Age, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma injury grade, and elevated SI were included in multivariate modeling. Grade of injury (OR 3.49, P = 0.001), age (OR 1.02, P = 0.009), and high SI (OR 3.49, P = 0.001) were each independently significant for NIM failure. The risk-adjusted odds of failure were significantly higher in patients with a high risk SI (OR 2.35, P < 0.001). Validation of these findings was confirmed for high SI on a subsequent 406 patients with a c-statistic of 0.71 (95% CI 0.62-0.80). Conclusions: Elevated SI is an independent risk factor for failure of NIM in those with splenic injury. SI along with age and computed tomography findings may aid in predicting the failure of NIM. Trauma providers should incorporate SI into decision-making tools for splenic injury management.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Perceived Utility of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring in Traumatic Brain Injury: A Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference Consensus-Based Analysis and Recommendations
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2023) Chesnut, Randall M.; Aguilera, Sergio; Buki, Andras; Bulger, Eileen M.; Citerio, Giuseppe; Cooper, D. Jamie; Diaz Arrastia, Ramon; Diringer, Michael; Figaji, Anthony; Gao, Guoyi; Geocadin, Romergryko G.; Ghajar, Jamshid; Harris, Odette; Hawryluk, Gregory W. J.; Hoffer, Alan; Hutchinson, Peter; Joseph, Mathew; Kitagawa, Ryan; Manley, Geoffrey; Mayer, Stephan; Menon, David K.; Meyfroidt, Geert; Michael, Daniel B.; Oddo, Mauro; Okonkwo, David O.; Patel, Mayur B.; Robertson, Claudia; Rosenfeld, Jeffrey V.; Rubiano, Andres M.; Sahuquillo, Juain; Servadei, Franco; Shutter, Lori; Stein, Deborah M.; Stocchetti, Nino; Taccone, Fabio Silvio; Timmons, Shelly D.; Tsai, Eve C.; Ullman, Jamie S.; Videtta, Walter; Wright, David W.; Zammit, Christopher; Neurological Surgery, School of Medicine
    Background: Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is widely practiced, but the indications are incompletely developed, and guidelines are poorly followed. Objective: To study the monitoring practices of an established expert panel (the clinical working group from the Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference effort) to examine the match between monitoring guidelines and their clinical decision-making and offer guidance for clinicians considering monitor insertion. Methods: We polled the 42 Seattle International Brain Injury Consensus Conference panel members' ICP monitoring decisions for virtual patients, using matrices of presenting signs (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] total or GCS motor, pupillary examination, and computed tomography diagnosis). Monitor insertion decisions were yes, no, or unsure (traffic light approach). We analyzed their responses for weighting of the presenting signs in decision-making using univariate regression. Results: Heatmaps constructed from the choices of 41 panel members revealed wider ICP monitor use than predicted by guidelines. Clinical examination (GCS) was by far the most important characteristic and differed from guidelines in being nonlinear. The modified Marshall computed tomography classification was second and pupils third. We constructed a heatmap and listed the main clinical determinants representing 80% ICP monitor insertion consensus for our recommendations. Conclusion: Candidacy for ICP monitoring exceeds published indicators for monitor insertion, suggesting the clinical perception that the value of ICP data is greater than simply detecting and monitoring severe intracranial hypertension. Monitor insertion heatmaps are offered as potential guidance for ICP monitor insertion and to stimulate research into what actually drives monitor insertion in unconstrained, real-world conditions.