BackgroundTraumatic pancreatic injuries are rare, and guidelines specifying management are controversial and difficult to apply in the acute clinical setting. Due to sparse data on these injuries, we carried out a retrospective review to determine outcomes following surgical or non-surgical management of traumatic pancreatic injuries. We hypothesize a higher morbidity and mortality rate in patients treated surgically when compared to patients treated non-surgically.MethodsWe performed a retrospective review of data from four trauma centers in New York from 1990–2014, comparing patients who had blunt traumatic pancreatic injuries who were managed operatively to those managed non-operatively. We compared continuous variables using the Mann-Whitney U test and categorical variables using the chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. Univariate analysis was performed to determine the possible confounding factors associated with mortality in both treatment groups.ResultsTwenty nine patients were managed operatively and 32 non-operatively. There was a significant difference between the operative and non-operative groups in median age (37.0 vs. 16.2 years, P = 0.016), grade of pancreatic injury (grade I; 30.8 vs. 85.2%, P value for all comparisons <0.0001), median injury severity score (ISS) (16.0 vs. 4.0, P = 0.002), blood transfusion (55.2 vs. 15.6%, P = 0.0012), other abdominal injuries (79.3 vs. 38.7%, P = 0.0014), pelvic fractures (17.2 vs. 0.00%, P = 0.020), intensive care unit (ICU) admission (86.2 vs. 50.0%, P = 0.003), median length of stay (LOS) (16.0 vs. 4.0 days, P <0.0001), and mortality (27.6 vs. 3.1%, P = 0.010).ConclusionsPatients with traumatic pancreatic injuries treated operatively were more severely injured and suffered greater complications than those treated non-operatively. The greater morbidity and mortality associated with these patients warrants further study to determine optimal triage strategies and which subset of patients is likely to benefit from surgery.

Study Objectives: This study examined empirically derived symptom cluster profiles among patients who present with insomnia using clinical data and polysomnography. Methods: Latent profile analysis was used to identify symptom cluster profiles of 175 individuals (63% female) with insomnia disorder based on total scores on validated self-report instruments of daytime and nighttime symptoms (Insomnia Severity Index, Glasgow Sleep Effort Scale, Fatigue Severity Scale, Beliefs and Attitudes about Sleep, Epworth Sleepiness Scale, Pre-Sleep Arousal Scale), mean values from a 7-day sleep diary (sleep onset latency, wake after sleep onset, and sleep efficiency), and total sleep time derived from an in-laboratory PSG. Results:The best-fitting model had three symptom cluster profiles: "High Subjective Wakefulness" (HSW), "Mild Insomnia" (MI) and "Insomnia-Related Distress" (IRD). The HSW symptom cluster profile (26.3% of the sample) reported high wake after sleep onset, high sleep onset latency, and low sleep efficiency. Despite relatively comparable PSG-derived total sleep time, they reported greater levels of daytime sleepiness. The MI symptom cluster profile (45.1%) reported the least disturbance in the sleep diary and questionnaires and had the highest sleep efficiency. The IRD symptom cluster profile (28.6%) reported the highest mean scores on the insomnia-related distress measures (eg, sleep effort and arousal) and waking correlates (fatigue). Covariates associated with symptom cluster membership were older age for the HSW profile, greater obstructive sleep apnea severity for the MI profile, and, when adjusting for obstructive sleep apnea severity, being overweight/obese for the IRD profile. Conclusions:The heterogeneous nature of insomnia disorder is captured by this data-driven approach to identify symptom cluster profiles. The adaptation of a symptom cluster-based approach could guide tailored patient-centered management of patients presenting with insomnia, and enhance patient care. Keywords: insomnia disorder, latent profile analysis, symptom profile, symptom clusters Citation: Crawford MR, Chirinos DA, Iurcotta T, Edinger JD, Wyatt JK, Manber R, Ong JC. Characterization of patients who present with insomnia: is there room for a symptom cluster-based approach? J Clin Sleep Med. 2017;13(7):911-921. I NTRO DUCTI O NInsomnia is the experience of the difficulty falling asleep, difficulty staying asleep, or early morning awakenings. About one-third to one-half of adults complains of these symptoms. Frequently, other complaints, such as sleepiness, fatigue, and hyperarousal, will occur with nocturnal sleep disturbance. An insomnia disorder is defined in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) 2 as the combination of the nocturnal sleep disturbance with one of these waking complaints at least 3 nights a week for at least 3 months. Approximately 8% to 10% of the adult population meets these criteria. 3,4Insomnia disorder is a heterogeneous condition.5 This can pose a chall...

No abstract