Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Following the 2022 Russian invasion, Ukraine's healthcare system suffered extensive damage, with over 1000 medical facilities destroyed, exacerbating the trauma care crisis. The absence of standardized trauma training left Ukrainian healthcare providers ill-equipped to manage the surge in trauma cases amid conflict. To bridge this gap, we implemented advanced trauma life support (ATLS) courses in Ukraine amid active warfare, aiming to enhance trauma care expertise among healthcare professionals. METHODS:A consortium, including the International Medical Corps, Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, and others, responded to a request from the Ukrainian Ministry of Health. The ATLS curriculum, translated into Ukrainian, guided the training, with US-based instructors sent to Ukraine for teaching. Despite logistical challenges, such as missile attacks and curfews, the courses ran in multiple Ukrainian cities over 3 months. Course effectiveness was evaluated through pre- and post-course knowledge tests, self-efficacy surveys, and satisfaction assessments. RESULTS:Ten ATLS courses trained 213 Ukrainian healthcare providers across five deployments. Significant improvements in knowledge scores (p < 0.05) and enhanced self-reported confidence in trauma management were observed. Notably, no casualties were reported among instructors or students, highlighting program safety despite security challenges. CONCLUSIONS:Our study demonstrates successful ATLS course implementation in an active war zone, filling a critical gap in trauma education in Ukraine. Despite challenges, the program significantly enhanced participants' trauma care knowledge and confidence. Collaboration between international and local partners was pivotal. This model can serve as a valuable framework for trauma education globally, improving outcomes in conflict zones and resource-limited settings.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:This study aimed to assess perioperative bleeding complications and in-hospital mortality in patients requiring emergency general surgery presenting with a history of antiplatelet (AP) versus direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) versus warfarin use. METHODS:A prospective observational study across 21 centers between 2019 and 2022 was conducted. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years or older, and DOAC, warfarin, or AP use within 24 hours of an emergency general surgery procedure. Outcomes included perioperative bleeding and in-hospital mortality. The study was conducted using analysis of variance, χ 2 , and multivariable regression models. RESULTS:Of the 413 patients, 221 (53.5%) reported AP use, 152 (36.8%) DOAC use, and 40 (9.7%) warfarin use. The most common indications for surgery were obstruction (23% [AP], 45% [DOAC], and 28% [warfarin]), intestinal ischemia (13%, 17%, and 23%), and diverticulitis/peptic ulcers (7%, 7%, and 15%). Compared with DOAC use, warfarin use was associated with significantly higher perioperative bleeding complication (odds ratio [OR], 4.4 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.0-9.9]). There was no significant difference in perioperative bleeding complication between DOAC and AP use (OR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.4-1.1]). Compared with DOAC use, there was no significant difference in mortality between warfarin use (OR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.2-2.5]) or AP use (OR, 0.5 [95% CI, 0.2-1.2]). After adjusting for confounders, warfarin use (OR, 6.3 [95% CI, 2.8-13.9]), medical history, and operative indication were associated with an increase in perioperative bleeding complications. However, warfarin was not independently associated with risk of mortality (OR, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.39-4.7]), whereas intraoperative vasopressor use (OR, 4.7 [95% CI, 1.7-12.8]), medical history, and postoperative bleeding (OR, 5.5 [95% CI, 2.4-12.8]) were. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite ongoing concerns about the increase in DOAC use and lack of readily available reversal agents, this study suggests that warfarin, rather than DOACs, is associated with higher perioperative bleeding complications. However, that risk does not result in an increase in mortality, suggesting that perioperative decisions should be dictated by patient disease and comorbidities rather than type of AP or anticoagulant use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

BACKGROUND:While direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) use is increasing in the Emergency General Surgery (EGS) patient population, our understanding of their bleeding risk in the acute setting remains limited. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of perioperative bleeding complications in patients using DOACs versus warfarin and AP therapy requiring urgent/emergent EGS procedures (EGSPs). METHODS:This was a prospective observational trial, conducted between 2019 and 2022, across 21 centers. Inclusion criteria were 18 years or older, DOAC, warfarin/AP use within 24 hours of requiring an urgent/emergent EGSP. Demographics, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative data were collected. ANOVA, χ 2 , and multivariable regression models were used to conduct the analysis. RESULTS:Of the 413 patients enrolled in the study, 261 (63%) reported warfarin/AP use and 152 (37%) reported DOAC use. Appendicitis and cholecystitis were the most frequent indication for operative intervention in the warfarin/AP group (43.4% vs. 25%, p = 0.001). Small bowel obstruction/abdominal wall hernias were the main indication for operative intervention in the DOAC group (44.7% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.001). Intraoperative, postoperative, and perioperative bleeding complications and in-hospital mortality were similar between the two groups. After adjusting for confounders, a history of chemotherapy (odds ratio [OR], 4.3; p = 0.015) and indication for operative intervention including occlusive mesenteric ischemia (OR, 4.27; p = 0.016), nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia (OR, 3.13; p = 0.001), and diverticulitis (OR, 3.72; p = 0.019) were associated with increased perioperative bleeding complications. The need for an intraoperative transfusion (OR, 4.87; p < 0.001), and intraoperative vasopressors (OR, 4.35; p = 0.003) were associated with increased in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION:Perioperative bleeding complications and mortality are impacted by the indication for EGSPs and patient's severity of illness rather than a history of DOAC or warfarin/AP use. Therefore, perioperative management should be guided by patient physiology and indication for surgery rather than the concern for recent antiplatelet or anticoagulant use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

BACKGROUND:Antimicrobial guidance for common bile duct stones during the perioperative period is limited. We sought to examine the effect of broad-spectrum (BS) vs narrow-spectrum (NS) antibiotics on surgical site infections (SSIs) in patients with common bile duct stones undergoing same-admission cholecystectomy. STUDY DESIGN:We performed a post hoc analysis of a prospective, observational, multicenter study of patients undergoing same-admission cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis and/or acute biliary pancreatitis between 2016 and 2019. We excluded patients with cholangitis, perforated cholecystitis, and nonbiliary infections on admission. Patients were divided based on receipt of BS or NS antibiotics. Our primary outcome was the incidence of SSIs, and secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, acute kidney injury (AKI), and 30-day readmission for SSI. RESULTS:The cohort had 891 patients: 51.7% (n= 461) received BS antibiotics and 48.3% (n = 430) received NS antibiotics. Overall antibiotic duration was longer in the BS group than in the NS group (6 vs 4 d, p = 0.01); however, there was no difference in rates of SSI (0.9% vs 0.5%, p = 0.7) or 30-day readmission for SSI (1.1% vs 1.2%, p = 1.0). Hospital length of stay was significantly longer in the BS group (p < 0.001) as were rates of AKI (5% vs 1.4%, p = 0.001). On multivariable regression, BS antibiotic use was a risk factor for AKI (adjusted odds ratio 2.8, 95% CI 1.16 to 7.82, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION:The incidence of SSI and 30-day readmission for SSI was similar between antibiotic groups. However, BS antibiotic use was associated with a longer hospitalization and greater likelihood of AKI.

BACKGROUND:We sought to prospectively identify risk factors for biliary complications and 30-day readmission after cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis and gallstone pancreatitis across multiple US hospitals. METHODS:We performed a prospective, observational study of patients who underwent same admission cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis and gallstone pancreatitis between 2016 and 2019 at 12 US centers. Patients with prior history of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or diagnosis of cholangitis were excluded. We used logistic regression to determine associations between preoperative demographics, labs, and imaging on primary outcomes: postoperative biliary complications and 30-day readmission. RESULTS:There were 989 patients in the cohort. There were 16 (1.6%) patients with postoperative biliary complications, including intra-abdominal abscesses, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-induced pancreatitis, and biliary leaks. Increasing operative time (odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.01, P = .02), worsening leukocytosis (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.25, P = .0002), and jaundice (odds ratio 3.25, 95% confidence interval 1.01-10.42, P = .04) were associated with postoperative biliary complications. There were 36 (3.6%) patients readmitted within 30 days owing to a surgical complication. A prior postoperative biliary complication (odds ratio 7.8, 95% confidence interval 1.63-37.27, P = .01), male sex (odds ratio 2.42, 95% confidence interval 1.2-4.87, P = .01), and index operative duration (odds ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 1.00-1.01, P = .03) were associated with 30-day readmission. CONCLUSION:Among patients undergoing cholecystectomy for common bile duct stones, jaundice, worsening leukocytosis, and longer operations are associated with postoperative biliary complications. A prior biliary complication is also predictive of a 30-day readmission. Surgeons should recognize these factors and avoid prematurely discharging at-risk patients given their propensity to develop complications and require readmission.

OBJECTIVE:The mental health toll of COVID-19 on healthcare workers (HCW) is not yet fully described. We characterized distress, coping, and preferences for support among NYC HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS:This was a cross-sectional web survey of physicians, advanced practice providers, residents/fellows, and nurses, conducted during a peak of inpatient admissions for COVID-19 in NYC (April 9th-April 24th 2020) at a large medical center in NYC (n = 657). RESULTS:Positive screens for psychological symptoms were common; 57% for acute stress, 48% for depressive, and 33% for anxiety symptoms. For each, a higher percent of nurses/advanced practice providers screened positive vs. attending physicians, though housestaff's rates for acute stress and depression did not differ from either. Sixty-one percent of participants reported increased sense of meaning/purpose since the COVID-19 outbreak. Physical activity/exercise was the most common coping behavior (59%), and access to an individual therapist with online self-guided counseling (33%) garnered the most interest. CONCLUSIONS:NYC HCWs, especially nurses and advanced practice providers, are experiencing COVID-19-related psychological distress. Participants reported using empirically-supported coping behaviors, and endorsed indicators of resilience, but they also reported interest in additional wellness resources. Programs developed to mitigate stress among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic should integrate HCW preferences.

PURPOSE:To analyze in-room video recordings of operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs to determine tempo and quality of team interactions on nights and weekends compared with weekdays, and to demonstrate how existing telemedicine technology can be used to evaluate handoffs. METHOD:This prospective observational study of OR-to-ICU bedside handoffs was conducted in the surgical ICU of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in July 2014-January 2015. Handoff video recordings were obtained for quality improvement purposes using existing telemedicine cameras. Evaluators used adapted validated in-person assessment measures to analyze basic characteristics and quality measures (timing, report types, report duration, presence of physical exam, teamwork skills, engagement, report delivery skills, listening skills, interruptions, unprofessional comments or actions). RESULTS:Sixteen weekday and 16 night and weekend handoffs were compared. There were no significant differences in basic characteristics. Most quality measures were similar on weekdays compared with nights and weekends. Surgeons demonstrated better report delivery skills and engagement on nights and weekends (P = .002 and P = .04, respectively), whereas OR anesthesiologists' scores were similar during both time frames. CONCLUSIONS:This study presents a novel approach of assessing handoff quality in OR-to-ICU handoffs using an existing telemedicine infrastructure. Using this approach, quality measures of night and weekend handoffs were found to be no worse-and sometimes better-than those during weekdays. Video analysis may emerge as an ideal unobtrusive quality improvement methodology to monitor handoffs and improve education and compliance with institutional handoff policies.

Operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs are complex and known to be associated with adverse events and patient harm. The authors hypothesized that handoff quality diminishes during nights/weekends and that bedside handoff practices are similar between ICUs of the same health system. Bedside OR-to-ICU handoffs were directly observed in 2 surgical ICUs with different patient volumes. Handoff quality measures were compared within the ICUs on weekdays versus nights/weekends as well as between the high- and moderate-volume ICUs. In the high-volume ICU, transmitter delivery scores were significantly better during off hours, while other measures were not different. High-volume ICU scores were consistently better than those in the moderate-volume ICU. Bedside handoff practices are not worse during off hours and may be better in ICUs used to a higher patient volume. Specific handoff protocols merit evaluation and training to ensure consistent practices in different ICU models and at different times.