Faculty Bibliography

In critically ill patients, fluid resuscitation with balanced crystalloids close to plasma osmolarity have a lower risk of electrolyte imbalances and demonstrated better clinical outcomes compared to normal saline (NS). While lactated ringer's (LR) has shown benefit over NS, plasma-lyte (PL) with a higher osmolarity and different electrolyte formulation is hypothesized to be superior. We performed a retrospective observational cohort study over 37 months at a tertiary hospital. Inclusion criteria were hospitalization in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU), trauma indication, ≥18 years old, and received either PL or LR. All PL administrations and every fifth patient with LR as resuscitation were included in order to match the sample size in each group. Primary outcomes were SICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, and mortality. Secondary outcomes were biomarker changes from baseline. There were 113 patients in both PL and LR groups. The PL arm had higher APACHE II scores (16 vs 13, P = .033) and were more likely ventilated (39.3% vs 20.4%, P = .002) compared to LR. Median hospital LOS (12.0 vs 8.0, P < .001) and SICU LOS (6.0 vs 3.0, P < .001) are significantly longer in PL group compared to the LR group. However, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality (5.3% vs 3.5% P = .519) and SICU mortality (9.7% vs 5.3%, P > .208) between PL and LR. Overall, PL use was associated with prolonged hospital and SICU LOS. PL use did not demonstrate mortality benefit. However, patients were more critically ill in PL group based on higher APACHE II scores and higher rates of mechanical ventilation, which could be contributing to these unfavorable outcomes.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Autonomy during residency is crucial to the training and development of competent surgeons. An essential component of this process is the 'teaching assistant (TA)' case, an indispensable opportunity for residents to gain confidence and hone intraoperative skills. However, high-quality data on the volume and diversity of cases that graduates perform are scarce. METHODS:A retrospective analysis was performed from publicly collected data of operative case logs from general surgery residents graduating from ACGME-accredited programs from 2006 to 2023. Data on the median overall number of surgeon chief and TA cases were retrieved. Collected data were organized based on sub-specialties. The Mann-Kendall trend test was used to investigate trends in TA cases and surgeon chief operative volume. RESULTS:Between 2007 and 2023, the surgeon chief cases gradually increased from 229 to 274 (19.6 ​% increase; τ ​= ​0.610, p ​= ​0.001). There was a concurrent 72.7 ​% increase in TA cases from a median of 22-38 (τ ​= ​0.574, p ​= ​0.001). Surgeon chief (283 per resident) and TA cases (43 per resident) peaked in 2018-2019 and 2016-2017. The uptrend in TA cases was associated with the significant increase in colorectal (τ ​= ​0.559, p ​= ​0.001), general surgery-other (τ ​= ​0.404, p ​= ​0.018), and hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) (τ ​= ​0.596, p ​= ​0.001) subspecialties. Trauma and vascular surgery did not change significantly. With respect to total chief cases, general surgery-other (τ ​= ​0.956, p=<0.001), HPB (τ ​= ​0.713, p=<0.001) and colorectal (τ ​= ​0.522, p ​= ​0.004) volume increased. There was no significant change in trauma and foregut volume, while the volume of endocrine (τ ​= ​-0.485, p ​= ​0.006) and vascular surgery (τ ​= ​0.603, p ​= ​0.001) dropped significantly. The procedural category with the highest chief and TA volume was 'colorectal tract - large intestine.' Most procedural categories (53.49 ​%) retained a median of 0 teaching cases. No chief cases were logged for the specialties generally not considered part of general surgery (genitourinary, nervous system, orthopedics, and gynecology), although a median of 1 surgeon chief genitourinary case was recorded from 2018 to 2023. CONCLUSIONS:Over the past seventeen years, there has been a gradual uptrend in the number of surgeon chief and TA cases. While this is a positive indicator of improved autonomy, further research must focus on strategies to improve resident autonomy to train well-rounded surgeons safely.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health issue with a substantial burden on society. Screening and intervention practices vary widely and there are no standard guidelines. Our objective was to review research on current practices for IPV prevention in emergency departments and trauma centers in the USA and provide evidenced-based recommendations. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:An evidence-based systematic review of the literature was conducted to address screening and intervention for IPV in adult trauma and emergency department patients. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology was used to determine the quality of evidence. Studies were included if they addressed our prespecified population, intervention, control, and outcomes questions. Case reports, editorials, and abstracts were excluded from review. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Seven studies met inclusion criteria. All seven were centered around screening for IPV; none addressed interventions when abuse was identified. Screening instruments varied across studies. Although it is unclear if one tool is more accurate than others, significantly more victims were identified when screening protocols were implemented compared with non-standardized approaches to identifying IPV victims. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Overall, there were very limited data addressing the topic of IPV screening and intervention in emergency medical settings, and the quality of the evidence was low. With likely low risk and a significant potential benefit, we conditionally recommend implementation of a screening protocol to identify victims of IPV in adults treated in the emergency department and trauma centers. Although the purpose of screening would ultimately be to provide resources for victims, no studies that assessed distinct interventions met our inclusion criteria. Therefore, we cannot make specific recommendations related to IPV interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER/UNASSIGNED:CRD42020219517.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID19) is known to cause coagulopathy as multiple systemic coagulation and inflammatory responses are activated during infectious complications. In COVID19 patients, hypercoagulopathy usually presents with an elevated D-dimer level.
METHOD(S): All patients >= 18 years old who were admitted to NYU Langone Hospital-Long Island with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 or with a flagged admission of COVID19 during April 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020 were included. IRB approval was acquired prior to data collection and upon permission, the clinical pharmacy IT department ran a report to identify patients. Most patients had a positive reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test during their admission, while a small number of patients were diagnosed before admission. Admissions included ICU patients or general ward patients. Series of D dimers were recorded.
RESULT(S): There were 350 patients enrolled in the study, 331 had no VTE, 19 had VTE. Peak D dimer was 4876 (range 1509 to 15,872) in VTE group vs. 680 in non VTE group (range: 257 to 2723). 47.4% of VTE group had peak D dimer greater than 5000 vs. 16% of non VTE group. Surprisingly, there was no difference in mortality between the two groups: 26.3% for VTE group; 19.9% in non VTE group, (p=0.556). However, VTE group had higher ICU admission rate 42.1% vs. 20.2% of non VTE group, p=0.039. Length of intubation was also significantly higher in VTE group (27 days) comparing to non VTE group (6 days), p=0.007.
CONCLUSION(S): Covid 19 patients with VTE have much higher D dimer than non VTE Covid 19 patients. Although there is no difference in mortality in the two groups in our study, VTE group is associated with higher ICU admission as well as longer length of intubation days

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been shown to affect outcomes among surgical patients. We hypothesized that COVID-19 would be linked to higher mortality and longer length of stay of trauma patients regardless of the injury severity score (ISS). METHODS:We performed a retrospective analysis of trauma registries from two level 1 trauma centers (suburban and urban) from March 1, 2019, to June 30, 2019, and March 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020, comparing baseline characteristics and cumulative adverse events. Data collected included ISS, demographics, and comorbidities. The primary outcome was time from hospitalization to in-hospital death. Outcomes during the height of the first New York COVID-19 wave were also compared with the same time frame in the prior year. Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test and Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare outcomes. RESULTS:There were 1180 trauma patients admitted during the study period from March 2020 to June 2020. Of these, 596 were never tested for COVID-19 and were excluded from the analysis. A total of 148 COVID+ patients and 436 COVID- patients composed the 2020 cohort for analysis. Compared with the 2019 cohort, the 2020 cohort was older with more associated comorbidities, more adverse events, but lower ISS. Higher rates of historical hypertension, diabetes, neurologic events, and coagulopathy were found among COVID+ patients compared with COVID- patients. D-dimer and ferritin were unreliable indicators of COVID-19 severity; however, C-reactive protein levels were higher in COVID+ relative to COVID- patients. Patients who were COVID+ had a lower median ISS compared with COVID- patients, and COVID+ patients had higher rates of mortality and longer length of stay. CONCLUSIONS:COVID+ trauma patients admitted to our two level 1 trauma centers had increased morbidity and mortality compared with admitted COVID- trauma patients despite age and lower ISS. C-reactive protein may play a role in monitoring COVID-19 activity in trauma patients. A better understanding of the physiological impact of COVID-19 on injured patients warrants further investigation.