IntroductionNosocomial pneumonia has poor prognosis in hospitalized trauma patients. Croce et al. published a model to predict post-traumatic ventilator-associated pneumonia, which achieved high... Show moreIntroductionNosocomial pneumonia has poor prognosis in hospitalized trauma patients. Croce et al. published a model to predict post-traumatic ventilator-associated pneumonia, which achieved high discrimination and reasonable sensitivity. We aimed to externally validate Croce's model to predict nosocomial pneumonia in patients admitted to a Dutch level-1 trauma center.Materials and methodsThis retrospective study included all trauma patients (>= 16y) admitted for > 24 h to our level-1 trauma center in 2017. Exclusion criteria were pneumonia or antibiotic treatment upon hospital admission, treatment elsewhere > 24 h, or death < 48 h. Croce's model used eight clinical variables-on trauma severity and treatment, available in the emergency department-to predict nosocomial pneumonia risk. The model's predictive performance was assessed through discrimination and calibration before and after re-estimating the model's coefficients. In sensitivity analysis, the model was updated using Ridge regression.Results809 Patients were included (median age 51y, 67% male, 97% blunt trauma), of whom 86 (11%) developed nosocomial pneumonia. Pneumonia patients were older, more severely injured, and underwent more emergent interventions. Croce's model showed good discrimination (AUC 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87), yet predicted probabilities were too low (mean predicted risk 6.4%), and calibration was suboptimal (calibration slope 0.63). After full model recalibration, discrimination (AUC 0.84, 95% CI 0.80-0.88) and calibration improved. Adding age to the model increased the AUC to 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.91). Prediction parameters were similar after the models were updated using Ridge regression.ConclusionThe externally validated and intercept-recalibrated models show good discrimination and have the potential to predict nosocomial pneumonia. At this time, clinicians could apply these models to identify high-risk patients, increase patient monitoring, and initiate preventative measures. Recalibration of Croce's model improved the predictive performance (discrimination and calibration). The recalibrated model provides a further basis for nosocomial pneumonia prediction in level-1 trauma patients. Several models are accessible via an online tool. Show less
Background: Patients on prehospital anticoagulation with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a vulnerable subset of the trauma population. While protocolized warfarin reversal... Show moreBackground: Patients on prehospital anticoagulation with warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) represent a vulnerable subset of the trauma population. While protocolized warfarin reversal is widely available and easily implemented, prehospital anticoagulation with DOAC is cost prohibitive with only a few reversal options. This study aims to compare hospital outcomes of non-head injured trauma patients taking pre-injury DOAC versus warfarin.Methods: A retrospective cohort study at a level 1 trauma center was performed. All adult trauma patients with pre-injury anticoagulation admitted between January 2015 and December 2018, were stratified into DOAC-using and warfarin-using groups. Patients were excluded if they had traumatic brain injury (TBI). Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed. Outcomes measures included inhospital mortality, blood transfusion requirements, ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS and discharge disposition.Results: 374 non-TBI trauma patients on anticoagulation were identified, of which 134 were on DOACs and 240 on warfarin. Patients on DOACs had a higher ISS (9 [IQR, 9-10] vs. 9 [IQR, 5-9]; p<0.001), and lower admission INR values (1.2 [IQR, 1.1-1.3] vs 2.4 [IQR, 1.8-2.7]; p<0.001) than warfarin users. Use of reversal agents was higher in warfarin users (p< 0.001). Relative to warfarin, DOAC users did not differ significantly with respect to hospital mortality (OR 0.47, 95% CI [0.13-1.73]). Multivariable analysis (not possible for mortality) did not show significant difference for RBC transfusion requirements (OR 0.92 [0.51-1.67]), ICU LOS (OR 1.08 [0.53-2.19]), hospital LOS (OR 1.10 [0.70-1.74]) or discharge disposition (OR 0.56 [0.29-1.11]) between the groups.Conclusion: Despite lower reversal rates and higher ISS, non-TBI trauma patients with pre-injury DOAC use had similar outcomes as patients on pre-injury warfarin. There may be equipoise to have larger, prospective studies evaluating the comparative safety of DOACs and warfarin in the population prone to low energy fall type injuries. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
