Emergency Anesthesiology Encounters, Care Practices, and Outcomes for Patients with Firearm Injuries: A 9-Year Single-Center US Level 1 Trauma Experience

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Firearm injuries cause significant morbidity and mortality. Patients with firearm injuries require urgent/emergency operative procedures but the literature incompletely describes how anesthesia care and outcomes differ between high acuity trauma patients with and without firearm injuries. Our objective was to examine anesthesia care, resource utilization, and outcomes of patients with acute firearm injuries compared to nonfirearm injuries. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of patients ≥18 years admitted to a regional Level 1 trauma center between 2014 and 2022 who required operative management within the first 2 hours of hospital arrival. We examined clinical characteristics, anesthesiology care practices, and intra- and postoperative outcomes of patients with firearm injuries compared to patients with nonfirearm injuries. RESULTS: Over the 9-year study period, firearm injuries accounted for the largest yearly average increase in trauma admissions (firearm 10.1%, blunt 3.2%, other 1.3%, motor-vehicle crash 0.9%). Emergency anesthesiology care within 2 hours of arrival was delivered to 4.7% of injured patients (2124; 541 firearm [25.4%] and 1583 [74.5%] nonfirearm). Patients with firearm injuries were younger (30 [23-40] years vs 41 [29-56] years; P < .0001), male (90% vs 75%; P < .0001), direct admissions from scene (78% vs 62%; P < .0001), had less polytrauma (10% vs 22%; P < .0001), arrived after hours (73% vs 63%; P < .0001), and received earlier anesthesiology care (0.4 [0.3-0.7] vs 0.9 [0.5-1.5] hours after arrival; P < .0001). Patients with firearm injuries more often received invasive arterial (83% vs 77%; P < .0001) and central venous (14% vs 10%; P = .02) cannulation, blood products (3 [0-11] vs 0 [0-7] units; P < .0001), tranexamic acid (30% vs 22%; P < .001), as well as had higher estimated blood loss (500 [200-1588] mL vs 300 [100-1000] mL; P < .0001), and were transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) more frequently (83% vs 77%; P < .001) than patients with nonfirearm injuries. Intraoperative mortality was comparable (6% firearm vs 4% nonfirearm) but postoperative mortality was lower for patients with firearm injuries who survived the intraoperative course (6% vs 14%; P < .0001). Comparatively, more patients with firearm injuries were discharged to home, or to jail ( P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Over the study period, anesthesiologists increasingly cared for patients with firearm injuries, who often present outside of daytime hours and require urgent operative intervention. Operating room readiness and high-intensity resuscitation capacity, such as access to hemostatic control measures, are critical to achieving intraoperative survival and favorable postoperative outcomes, particularly for patients with firearm injuries.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.