BACKGROUND:Whole blood (WB) has shown promise in pediatric trauma resuscitation following its prominent role in the resuscitation of adult trauma patients. Although WB in children has been shown to be feasible, its effectiveness has yet to be explored. The aim of this study was to examine the outcomes of WB transfusion as an adjunct to component therapy (CT) compared with CT only as early resuscitation for pediatric trauma patients. METHODS:Children aged 1 to 17 years, who were transfused within 4 hours of presentation, were identified in the Trauma Quality Improvement Program 2017 database. Patients were stratified into those receiving WB-CT versus CT alone. Propensity score matching in a 1:2 ratio was performed based on patient demographics, injury characteristics, hemorrhage control interventions, and trauma center level. The primary outcome measure was patient transfusion requirement. Secondary outcome measures were mortality, hospital length of stay, ventilation days, and major complications. RESULTS: A total of 135 children receiving WB-CTwere matched to 270 patients receiving CT only. Mean (SD) age was 12 (5) years, 66% were male, and the median Injury Severity Score was 32 (range, 20-43). A total of 51% of patients were in shock, 34% had penetrating injuries, and 41% required surgical intervention for hemorrhage control. Total blood products transfused were significantly decreased in children receiving WB, both at 4 hours (35 [22-73] vs. 48 [33-95] mL/kg; p = 0.013) and 24 hours (39 [24-97] vs. 53 [36-119] mL/kg; p < 0.001). Mortality rate at 24 hours (19.3% vs. 21.9%; p = 0.546) and in-hospital mortality (31.1% vs. 34.4%; p = 0.502) were not different. Similarly, no difference in hospital length of stay and rates of major complications was found. Patients in the WB group required significantly less ventilation days (2 [2-6] vs. 3 [2-8] days; p = 0.021). CONCLUSION:Using WB as an adjunct to CT was associated with decreased transfusion requirements and ventilation days in pediatric trauma patients.

INTRODUCTION:Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) was developed to effectively use health care resources including repeat head computed tomography (RHCT) scan and neurosurgical consultation in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. The aim of this study was to prospectively validate BIG at a multi-institutional level. METHODS:This is a prospective, observational, multi-institutional trial across nine Levels I and II trauma centers. Adult (16 years or older) blunt TBI patients with a positive initial head computed tomography (CT) scan were identified and categorized into BIG 1, 2, and 3 based on their neurologic examination, alcohol intoxication, antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, and head CT scan findings. The primary outcome was neurosurgical intervention. The secondary outcomes were neurologic worsening, RHCT progression, postdischarge emergency department visit, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS:A total of 2,432 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 2,033 had no missing information and were categorized into BIG 1 (301 [14.8%]), BIG 2 (295 [14.5%]), and BIG 3 (1,437 [70.7%]). In BIG 1, no patient worsened clinically, 4 of 301 patients (1.3%) had progression on RHCT with no change in management, and none required neurosurgical intervention. In BIG 2, 2 of 295 patients (0.7%) worsened clinically, and 21 of 295 patients (7.1%) had progression on RHCT. Overall, 7 of 295 patients (2.4%) would have required upgrade from BIG 2 to 3 because of neurologic examination worsening or progression on RHCT, but no patient required neurosurgical intervention. There were no TBI-related postdischarge emergency department visits or 30day readmissions in BIG 1 and 2 patients. All patients who required neurosurgical intervention were BIG 3 (280 of 1,437 patients [19.5%]). Agreement between assigned and final BIG categories was excellent (κ = 99%). In this cohort, implementing BIG would have decreased CT scan utilization and neurosurgical consultation by 29% overall, with a 100% reduction in BIG 1 patients and a 98% reduction in BIG 2 patients. CONCLUSION:Brain Injury Guidelines is safe and defines the management of TBI patients by trauma and acute care surgeons without the routine need for RHCT and neurosurgical consultation.

Patient: Female, 41 Final Diagnosis: Acute ischemic stroke and ST elevation myocardial infarction Symptoms: Chest pain • facial droop Medication: — Clinical Procedure: — Specialty: Cardiology Objective: Rare co-existance of disease or pathology Background: Acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction and acute ischemic stroke are both life-threatening conditions with high risk for morbidity and mortality without timely intervention. This simultaneous event has been reported to be as rare as 0.009%. The treatments of both conditions individually have been well documented in the literature and guidelines, but when presenting concomitantly, it poses a unique therapeutic challenge. Immediate treatment of one condition can delay management or even have deleterious effects on the other condition. Case Report: We present the case of a 41-year-old female with simultaneous acute anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction and acute left middle cerebral artery ischemic stroke. Due to a low National Institute of Health score she was not a candidate for endovascular treatment and received alteplase per acute ischemic stroke protocol with delayed percutaneous coronary intervention. She was eventually discharged to a long-term acute care facility for continued rehabilitation. Conclusions: The co-existence of ST elevation myocardial infarction and acute ischemic stroke is rare, but when these 2 common conditions present simultaneously, it provides a unique therapeutic challenge. Although infrequent, this challenging scenario deserves more recognition and a discussion among the medical community.

Background/Aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most frequent cancer and a leading cause of cancer death in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). To date, no nationwide screening programs have been adopted. This prospective, longitudinal study investigated factors influencing the outcome of CRC in Saudi patients. Methods: Patients completed a CRC awareness questionnaire. Colonoscopy, CT/MRI, histopathology of tumor biopsies, and KRAS and BRAF testing were performed. Patients were treated according to their stage. All patients were followed until the end of the study and 3- and 5-year survival was assessed. Results: Sixty percent of study patients with sporadic CRC presented with significantly advanced disease (stages III and IV) with or without metastases at entry. Patients showed low levels of awareness of the risk factors and signs of CRC. Patients presented at a median age of 50 years. Family history of CRC and ulcerative colitis were positive in 11 and 6% of patients, respectively. Stage III/IV tumors with distant metastases at enrollment, right-sided tumors, mucinous tumors, lymphovascular invasion, and KRAS (51%) or BRAF (28%) mutations predicted poor prognosis and survival. Conclusion: CRC in KSA is usually diagnosed at advanced stages with metastases and KRAS/BRAF, and is associated with poor prognosis and short survival. Nationwide awareness campaigns and screening programs for CRC are critical for prevention, early detection and adequate management of CRC.