PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Andrew Smith
AU  - Jean-Francois Ouellet
AU  - Daniel Niven
AU  - Andrew W. Kirkpatrick
AU  - Elijah Dixon
AU  - Scott D’Amours
AU  - Chad G. Ball
TI  - Timeliness in obtaining emergent percutaneous procedures in severely injured patients: How long is too long and should we create quality assurance guidelines?
AID  - 10.1503/cjs.020012
DP  - 2013 Dec 01
TA  - Canadian Journal of Surgery
PG  - E154--E157
VI  - 56
IP  - 6
4099  - http://canjsurg.ca/content/56/6/E154.short
4100  - http://canjsurg.ca/content/56/6/E154.full
SO  - CAN J SURG2013 Dec 01; 56
AB  - Background: Modern trauma care relies heavily on nonoperative, emergent percutaneous procedures, particularly in patients with splenic, pelvic and hepatic injuries. Unfortunately, specific quality measures (e.g., arrival to angiography times) have not been widely discussed. Our objective was to evaluate the time interval from arrival to initiation of emergent percutaneous procedures in severely injured patients.Methods: All severely injured trauma patients (injury severity score [ISS] > 12) presenting to a level 1 trauma centre (2007–2010) were analyzed with standard statistical methodology.Results: Among 60 severely injured patients (mean ISS 31, hypotension 18%, mortality 12%), the median time interval to the initiation of an angiographic procedure was 270 minutes. Of the procedures performed, 85% were therapeutic embolizations and 15% were diagnostic procedures. Splenic (median time 243 min, range 32–801 min) and pelvic (median time 278 min, range 153–466 min) embolizations accounted for 43% and 25% of procedures, respectively. The median embolization procedure duration for the spleen was 28 (range 15–153) minutes compared with 59 (range 34–171) minutes for the pelvis. Nearly 22% of patients required both an emergent percutaneous and subsequent operative procedure. Percutaneous therapy typically preceded open operative explorations.Conclusion: The time interval from arrival at the trauma centre to emergent percutaneous procedures varied widely. Improved processes emphasizing patient transition from the trauma bay to the angiography suite are essential. Discussion regarding the appropriate time to angiography is needed so this marker can be used as a quality outcome measure for all level 1 trauma centres.