We hypothesized that the recent change of sepsis definition by sepsis-3 would facilitate the measurement of timing of sepsis for trauma patients presenting with initial systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Moreover, we investigated factors associated with sepsis according to the sepsis-3 definition. Trauma patients in a single level I trauma center were retrospectively reviewed from January 2014 to December 2016. Exclusion criteria were younger than 18 years, Injury Severity Score (ISS) <15, length of stay <8 days, transferred from other hospitals, uncertain trauma history, and incomplete medical records. A binary logistic regression test was used to identify the risk factors for sepsis-3. A total of 3,869 patients were considered and, after a process of exclusion, 422 patients were reviewed. Fifty patients (11.85%) were diagnosed with sepsis. The sepsis group presented with higher mortality (14 [28.0%] vs. 17 [4.6%], P<0.001) and longer intensive care unit stay (23 days [range, 11 to 35 days] vs. 3 days [range, 1 to 9 days], P<0.001). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that, in men, high lactate level and red blood cell transfusion within 24 hours were risk factors for sepsis. The median timing of sepsis-3 was at 8 hospital days and 4 postoperative days. The most common focus was the respiratory system. Sepsis defined by sepsis-3 remains a critical issue in severe trauma patients. Male patients with higher ISS, lactate level, and red blood cell transfusion should be cared for with caution. Reassessment of sepsis should be considered at day 8 of hospital stay or day 4 postoperatively.

Background: Hemorrhage control is a time-critical task, and recent studies have demonstrated that a shorter time to definitive care is positively associated with patient survival and functional outcomes. The concept of direct transport to the operating room was proposed in the 1960s to reduce treatment time. Some trauma centers have developed protocols for direct-to-operating room resuscitation (DOR) programs. Moreover, few studies have reported the clinical outcomes of DOR in patients with trauma; however, their clinical effect in improving the efficiency and quality of care remains unclear. In this systematic review, we aimed to consolidate all published studies reporting the effect of DOR on severe trauma and evaluate its utility. Methods: The PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to April 2023, to identify all articles published in English that reported the effect of direct-to-operating room trauma resuscitation for severe trauma. The articles were reviewed as references of interest. Results: We reviewed six studies reporting the clinical effect of operating room trauma resuscitation. A total of 3232 patients were identified. Five studies compared the actual mortality with the predicted mortality using the trauma score and injury severity score, while one study compared mortality using propensity matching. Four studies reported that the actual survival rate for overall injuries was better than the predicted survival rate, whereas two studies reported no difference. Some studies performed subgroup analyses. Two studies showed that the survival rate for penetrating injuries was better than the predicted survival rate, and one showed that the survival rate for blunt injuries was better than the predicted survival rate. Five studies reported the time to surgical intervention, which was within 30 min. Two studies time-compared surgical intervention, which was shorter in patients who underwent DOR. Conclusion: Implementing DOR is likely to have a beneficial effect on mortality and can facilitate rapid intervention in patients with severe shock. Future studies, possibly clinical trials, are needed to ensure a proper comparison of the efficiency.

Purpose The likelihood of re-bleeding after damage-control surgery (DCS) and perihepatic packing for high-grade liver injuries is a major concern. Thus, although early re-laparotomy tends to be recommended, we conducted this study to evaluate the feasibility of performing definite laparotomy within ≤ 48 h in this clinical population. Methods The subjects of this retrospective study were 65 patients (n = 24, ≤ 48-h group; n = 41, > 48-h group) who underwent DCS and perihepatic packing. The primary outcome was the rate of repacking for bleeding during re-laparotomy and the secondary outcomes were mortality and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Results The ≤ 48-h group had a higher rate of angioembolization and transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs), fresh frozen plasma, and platelets, but the rates of repacking and mortality were not significantly different between the groups. However, the incidence of pneumonia and ventilation support requirement were significantly lower in the ≤ 48-h group than in the > 48-h group. Conclusion The re-laparotomy performed within ≤ 48 h after DCS and perihepatic packing is feasible for patients with high grade liver injury, using angioembolization and aggressive transfusion, as required. Early re-laparotomy reduces the need for prolonged ventilator support and the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia.

A new blood bank system was established in our trauma bay, which allowed immediate utilization of uncross-matched type O packed red blood cells (UORBCs). We investigated the efficacy of UORBC compared to that of the ABO type-specific packed red blood cells (ABO RBCs) from before the bank was installed. From March 2016 to February 2017, data from trauma patients who received UORBCs in the trauma bay were compared with those of trauma patients who received ABO RBCs from January 2013 to December 2015. Propensity matching was used to overcome retrospective bias. The primary outcome was 24-hour mortality, while the secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS). Data from 252 patients were reviewed and UORBCs were administered to 64 patients. The time to transfusion from emergency room admission was shorter in the UORBC group (11 [7-16] minutes vs. 44 [29-72] minutes, P < 0.001). After propensity matching, 47 patients were included in each group. The 24-hour mortality (4 [8.5%] vs. 9 [13.8%], P = 0.135), in-hospital mortality (14 [29.8%] vs. 18 [38.3%], P = 0.384), and ICU LOS (9 [4-19] days vs. 5 [0-19] days, P = 0.155) did not differ significantly between groups. The utilization of UORBCs resulted in a faster transfusion but did not significantly improve the clinical outcomes in traumatic shock patients in this study. However, the tendency for lower mortality in the UORBC group suggested the need for a large study.