An evidence-based approach to patient selection for emergency department thoracotomy: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

Mark J. Seamon, Elliott R. Haut, Kyle Van Arendonk, Ronald R. Barbosa, William C. Chiu, Christopher J. Dente, Nicole Fox, Randeep S. Jawa, Kosar Khwaja, J. Kayle Lee, Louis J. Magnotti, Julie A. Mayglothling, Amy A. McDonald, Susan Rowell, Kathleen B. To, Yngve Falck-Ytter, Peter Rhee

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    87 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    BACKGROUND: Within the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework, we performed a systematic review and developed evidence-based recommendations to answer the following PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) question: should patients who present pulseless after critical injuries (with and without signs of life after penetrating thoracic, extrathoracic, or blunt injuries) undergo emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) (vs. resuscitation without EDT) to improve survival and neurologically intact survival? METHODS: All patients who underwent EDT were included while those involving either prehospital resuscitative thoracotomy or operating room thoracotomy were excluded. Quantitative synthesis via meta-analysis was not possible because no comparison or control group (i.e., survival or neurologically intact survival data for similar patients who did not undergo EDT) was available for the PICO questions of interest. RESULTS: The 72 included studies provided 10,238 patients who underwent EDT. Patients presenting pulseless after penetrating thoracic injury had the most favorable EDT outcomes both with (survival, 182 [21.3%] of 853; neurologically intact survival, 53 [11.7%] of 454) and without (survival, 76 [8.3%] of 920; neurologically intact survival, 25 [3.9%] of 641) signs of life. In patients presenting pulseless after penetrating extrathoracic injury, EDT outcomes were more favorable with signs of life (survival, 25 [15.6%] of 160; neurologically intact survival, 14 [16.5%] of 85) than without (survival, 4 [2.9%] of 139; neurologically intact survival, 3 [5.0%] of 60). Outcomes after EDT in pulseless blunt injury patients were limited with signs of life (survival, 21 [4.6%] of 454; neurologically intact survival, 7 [2.4%] of 298) and dismal without signs of life (survival, 7 [0.7%] of 995; neurologically intact survival, 1 [0.1%] of 825). CONCLUSION: We strongly recommend that patients who present pulseless with signs of life after penetrating thoracic injury undergo EDT. We conditionally recommend EDT for patients who present pulseless and have absent signs of life after penetrating thoracic injury, present or absent signs of life after penetrating extrathoracic injury, or present signs of life after blunt injury. Lastly, we conditionally recommend against EDT for pulseless patients without signs of life after blunt injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review/guideline, level III.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)159-173
    Number of pages15
    JournalJournal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery
    Volume79
    Issue number1
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Jul 3 2015

    Fingerprint

    Practice Management
    Thoracotomy
    Practice Guidelines
    Patient Selection
    Hospital Emergency Service
    Survival
    Wounds and Injuries
    Thoracic Injuries
    Nonpenetrating Wounds
    Operating Rooms
    Resuscitation
    Population

    Keywords

    • Emergency department thoracotomy
    • evidence-based medicine
    • practice management guideline
    • resuscitative thoracotomy

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
    • Surgery
    • Medicine(all)

    Cite this

    An evidence-based approach to patient selection for emergency department thoracotomy : A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. / Seamon, Mark J.; Haut, Elliott R.; Van Arendonk, Kyle; Barbosa, Ronald R.; Chiu, William C.; Dente, Christopher J.; Fox, Nicole; Jawa, Randeep S.; Khwaja, Kosar; Lee, J. Kayle; Magnotti, Louis J.; Mayglothling, Julie A.; McDonald, Amy A.; Rowell, Susan; To, Kathleen B.; Falck-Ytter, Yngve; Rhee, Peter.

    In: Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, Vol. 79, No. 1, 03.07.2015, p. 159-173.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Seamon, MJ, Haut, ER, Van Arendonk, K, Barbosa, RR, Chiu, WC, Dente, CJ, Fox, N, Jawa, RS, Khwaja, K, Lee, JK, Magnotti, LJ, Mayglothling, JA, McDonald, AA, Rowell, S, To, KB, Falck-Ytter, Y & Rhee, P 2015, 'An evidence-based approach to patient selection for emergency department thoracotomy: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma', Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 159-173. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000648
    Seamon, Mark J. ; Haut, Elliott R. ; Van Arendonk, Kyle ; Barbosa, Ronald R. ; Chiu, William C. ; Dente, Christopher J. ; Fox, Nicole ; Jawa, Randeep S. ; Khwaja, Kosar ; Lee, J. Kayle ; Magnotti, Louis J. ; Mayglothling, Julie A. ; McDonald, Amy A. ; Rowell, Susan ; To, Kathleen B. ; Falck-Ytter, Yngve ; Rhee, Peter. / An evidence-based approach to patient selection for emergency department thoracotomy : A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. In: Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2015 ; Vol. 79, No. 1. pp. 159-173.
    @article{d60e073d370a4be2b9d4caa9441e1d4a,
    title = "An evidence-based approach to patient selection for emergency department thoracotomy: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma",
    abstract = "BACKGROUND: Within the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework, we performed a systematic review and developed evidence-based recommendations to answer the following PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) question: should patients who present pulseless after critical injuries (with and without signs of life after penetrating thoracic, extrathoracic, or blunt injuries) undergo emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) (vs. resuscitation without EDT) to improve survival and neurologically intact survival? METHODS: All patients who underwent EDT were included while those involving either prehospital resuscitative thoracotomy or operating room thoracotomy were excluded. Quantitative synthesis via meta-analysis was not possible because no comparison or control group (i.e., survival or neurologically intact survival data for similar patients who did not undergo EDT) was available for the PICO questions of interest. RESULTS: The 72 included studies provided 10,238 patients who underwent EDT. Patients presenting pulseless after penetrating thoracic injury had the most favorable EDT outcomes both with (survival, 182 [21.3{\%}] of 853; neurologically intact survival, 53 [11.7{\%}] of 454) and without (survival, 76 [8.3{\%}] of 920; neurologically intact survival, 25 [3.9{\%}] of 641) signs of life. In patients presenting pulseless after penetrating extrathoracic injury, EDT outcomes were more favorable with signs of life (survival, 25 [15.6{\%}] of 160; neurologically intact survival, 14 [16.5{\%}] of 85) than without (survival, 4 [2.9{\%}] of 139; neurologically intact survival, 3 [5.0{\%}] of 60). Outcomes after EDT in pulseless blunt injury patients were limited with signs of life (survival, 21 [4.6{\%}] of 454; neurologically intact survival, 7 [2.4{\%}] of 298) and dismal without signs of life (survival, 7 [0.7{\%}] of 995; neurologically intact survival, 1 [0.1{\%}] of 825). CONCLUSION: We strongly recommend that patients who present pulseless with signs of life after penetrating thoracic injury undergo EDT. We conditionally recommend EDT for patients who present pulseless and have absent signs of life after penetrating thoracic injury, present or absent signs of life after penetrating extrathoracic injury, or present signs of life after blunt injury. Lastly, we conditionally recommend against EDT for pulseless patients without signs of life after blunt injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review/guideline, level III.",
    keywords = "Emergency department thoracotomy, evidence-based medicine, practice management guideline, resuscitative thoracotomy",
    author = "Seamon, {Mark J.} and Haut, {Elliott R.} and {Van Arendonk}, Kyle and Barbosa, {Ronald R.} and Chiu, {William C.} and Dente, {Christopher J.} and Nicole Fox and Jawa, {Randeep S.} and Kosar Khwaja and Lee, {J. Kayle} and Magnotti, {Louis J.} and Mayglothling, {Julie A.} and McDonald, {Amy A.} and Susan Rowell and To, {Kathleen B.} and Yngve Falck-Ytter and Peter Rhee",
    year = "2015",
    month = "7",
    day = "3",
    doi = "10.1097/TA.0000000000000648",
    language = "English (US)",
    volume = "79",
    pages = "159--173",
    journal = "Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery",
    issn = "2163-0755",
    publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - An evidence-based approach to patient selection for emergency department thoracotomy

    T2 - A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

    AU - Seamon, Mark J.

    AU - Haut, Elliott R.

    AU - Van Arendonk, Kyle

    AU - Barbosa, Ronald R.

    AU - Chiu, William C.

    AU - Dente, Christopher J.

    AU - Fox, Nicole

    AU - Jawa, Randeep S.

    AU - Khwaja, Kosar

    AU - Lee, J. Kayle

    AU - Magnotti, Louis J.

    AU - Mayglothling, Julie A.

    AU - McDonald, Amy A.

    AU - Rowell, Susan

    AU - To, Kathleen B.

    AU - Falck-Ytter, Yngve

    AU - Rhee, Peter

    PY - 2015/7/3

    Y1 - 2015/7/3

    N2 - BACKGROUND: Within the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework, we performed a systematic review and developed evidence-based recommendations to answer the following PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) question: should patients who present pulseless after critical injuries (with and without signs of life after penetrating thoracic, extrathoracic, or blunt injuries) undergo emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) (vs. resuscitation without EDT) to improve survival and neurologically intact survival? METHODS: All patients who underwent EDT were included while those involving either prehospital resuscitative thoracotomy or operating room thoracotomy were excluded. Quantitative synthesis via meta-analysis was not possible because no comparison or control group (i.e., survival or neurologically intact survival data for similar patients who did not undergo EDT) was available for the PICO questions of interest. RESULTS: The 72 included studies provided 10,238 patients who underwent EDT. Patients presenting pulseless after penetrating thoracic injury had the most favorable EDT outcomes both with (survival, 182 [21.3%] of 853; neurologically intact survival, 53 [11.7%] of 454) and without (survival, 76 [8.3%] of 920; neurologically intact survival, 25 [3.9%] of 641) signs of life. In patients presenting pulseless after penetrating extrathoracic injury, EDT outcomes were more favorable with signs of life (survival, 25 [15.6%] of 160; neurologically intact survival, 14 [16.5%] of 85) than without (survival, 4 [2.9%] of 139; neurologically intact survival, 3 [5.0%] of 60). Outcomes after EDT in pulseless blunt injury patients were limited with signs of life (survival, 21 [4.6%] of 454; neurologically intact survival, 7 [2.4%] of 298) and dismal without signs of life (survival, 7 [0.7%] of 995; neurologically intact survival, 1 [0.1%] of 825). CONCLUSION: We strongly recommend that patients who present pulseless with signs of life after penetrating thoracic injury undergo EDT. We conditionally recommend EDT for patients who present pulseless and have absent signs of life after penetrating thoracic injury, present or absent signs of life after penetrating extrathoracic injury, or present signs of life after blunt injury. Lastly, we conditionally recommend against EDT for pulseless patients without signs of life after blunt injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review/guideline, level III.

    AB - BACKGROUND: Within the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) framework, we performed a systematic review and developed evidence-based recommendations to answer the following PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes) question: should patients who present pulseless after critical injuries (with and without signs of life after penetrating thoracic, extrathoracic, or blunt injuries) undergo emergency department thoracotomy (EDT) (vs. resuscitation without EDT) to improve survival and neurologically intact survival? METHODS: All patients who underwent EDT were included while those involving either prehospital resuscitative thoracotomy or operating room thoracotomy were excluded. Quantitative synthesis via meta-analysis was not possible because no comparison or control group (i.e., survival or neurologically intact survival data for similar patients who did not undergo EDT) was available for the PICO questions of interest. RESULTS: The 72 included studies provided 10,238 patients who underwent EDT. Patients presenting pulseless after penetrating thoracic injury had the most favorable EDT outcomes both with (survival, 182 [21.3%] of 853; neurologically intact survival, 53 [11.7%] of 454) and without (survival, 76 [8.3%] of 920; neurologically intact survival, 25 [3.9%] of 641) signs of life. In patients presenting pulseless after penetrating extrathoracic injury, EDT outcomes were more favorable with signs of life (survival, 25 [15.6%] of 160; neurologically intact survival, 14 [16.5%] of 85) than without (survival, 4 [2.9%] of 139; neurologically intact survival, 3 [5.0%] of 60). Outcomes after EDT in pulseless blunt injury patients were limited with signs of life (survival, 21 [4.6%] of 454; neurologically intact survival, 7 [2.4%] of 298) and dismal without signs of life (survival, 7 [0.7%] of 995; neurologically intact survival, 1 [0.1%] of 825). CONCLUSION: We strongly recommend that patients who present pulseless with signs of life after penetrating thoracic injury undergo EDT. We conditionally recommend EDT for patients who present pulseless and have absent signs of life after penetrating thoracic injury, present or absent signs of life after penetrating extrathoracic injury, or present signs of life after blunt injury. Lastly, we conditionally recommend against EDT for pulseless patients without signs of life after blunt injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review/guideline, level III.

    KW - Emergency department thoracotomy

    KW - evidence-based medicine

    KW - practice management guideline

    KW - resuscitative thoracotomy

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84935126283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84935126283&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.1097/TA.0000000000000648

    DO - 10.1097/TA.0000000000000648

    M3 - Article

    C2 - 26091330

    AN - SCOPUS:84935126283

    VL - 79

    SP - 159

    EP - 173

    JO - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

    JF - Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery

    SN - 2163-0755

    IS - 1

    ER -