Robert F. Lavery
Other affiliations: University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, University Hospital, Newark
Bio: Robert F. Lavery is an academic researcher from Rutgers University. The author has contributed to research in topic(s): Trauma center & Poison control. The author has an hindex of 30, co-authored 58 publication(s) receiving 3595 citation(s). Previous affiliations of Robert F. Lavery include University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey & University Hospital, Newark.
Topics: Trauma center, Poison control, Injury Severity Score, Glasgow Coma Scale, Intensive care unit
Papers published on a yearly basis
TL;DR: The mortality from TBI is higher in the geriatric population at all levels of head injury, in addition, functional outcome at hospital discharge is worse and age itself is an independent predictor for mortality in TBI.
Abstract: Background Geriatric trauma patients have a worse outcome than the young with comparable injuries. The contribution of traumatic brain injury (TBI) to this increased mortality is unknown and has been confounded by the presence of other injuries. The purpose of this study was to investigate the role
TL;DR: Functional outcome after isolated mild TBI as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale and modified FIM is generally good to excellent for both elderly and younger patients.
Abstract: Objective:Elderly patients (aged 60 years and older) have been demonstrated to have an increased mortality after isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI); however, the prognosis of those patients surviving their hospitalization is unknown. We hypothesized that surviving elderly patients would also have
TL;DR: The integration of AE as an adjunctive modality for patients with high-grade liver injuries is a safe and effective therapeutic option.
Abstract: Objective Angiographic embolization (AE) is a safe and effective method for controlling hemorrhage in both blunt and penetrating liver injuries. Improved survival after hepatic injuries has been documented using a multimodality approach; however, patients still have significant long-term morbidity.
TL;DR: Data indicate that abdominal tenderness is not predictive of an abdominal injury and that patients with a negative CT scan after suspected blunt abdominal trauma do not benefit from hospital admission and prolonged observation.
Abstract: Objectives: Hospitalization for observation is the current standard of practice for patients who have sustained blunt abdominal trauma and who do not require emergent operation, despite having undergone diagnostic studies that exclude the presence of an intra-abdominal injury. The reasons for this practice are multifactorial and include the perceived false-negative rate of all standard diagnostic tests, the belief that hospitalization will allow for the prompt diagnosis of occult injuries, and medicolegal considerations about the risk of early discharge. The focus of this study was to determine whether hospitalization for observation is necessary after a negative diagnostic evaluation after blunt abdominal trauma, to determine the negative predictive value of abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scanning in a prospective series of patients, and to identify which patients can be safely released from the emergency department without observation or hospitalization after blunt abdominal trauma. Methods: In a prospective, multi-institutional study over 22 months at four Level I trauma centers, all patients with blunt abdominal trauma suspected by either physical examination or mechanism of injury were evaluated using the following protocol : physical examination in the emergency department, followed by abdominal CT scanning, followed by hospitalization for observation. The standardized physical examination was repeated between 4 and 8 hours. Outcomes were measured at 20 hours and at discharge and included clinical deterioration, the need for celiotomy, and mortality. Other data collected included demographics, mechanism of injury, and findings on physical examination and abdominal CT scanning. Results: Three thousand eight hundred twenty-two consecutive patients with suspected abdominal trauma presented to the four trauma centers. Two thousand seven hundred seventy-four of these met study eligibility criteria and were prospectively enrolled. Of these, 2299 fulfilled the entire study protocol. CT scan was negative in 1,809 patients, positive for organ injury or abdominal fluid in 389 patients, and nondiagnostic in 78 patients. Abdominal tenderness or bruising was present in 1,380 patients (61%), but only 22% had a positive CT scan. Nineteen percent of patients with a positive CT scan had no tenderness. Computed tomography detected 22 of the 25 blunt intestinal injuries in this series. Free intraperitoneal fluid without solid visceral injury was present in 90 patients, and but only 7 patients had intestinal injuries. There were nine celiotomies in patients whose CT scan was initially interpreted as negative: six were therapeutic (intestine in three, bladder in one, kidney in one, and diaphragm in one), two were nontherapeutic, and one was negative. The negative predictive power of an abdominal CT scan based on the preliminary reading and as defined by the subsequent need for a celiotomy in the population fully satisfying the protocol was 99.63% (lower 95 and 99% confidence bounds of 99.31 and 99.16%, respectively). Conclusion: These data indicate that abdominal tenderness is not predictive of an abdominal injury and that patients with a negative CT scan after suspected blunt abdominal trauma do not benefit from hospital admission and prolonged observation.
TL;DR: Structured communication between physician and families resulted in earlier consensus around goals of care for dying trauma patients and integration of early palliative care alongside aggressive trauma care can be accomplished without change in mortality and has the ability to change the culture of care in the trauma ICU.
Abstract: Background: Ten percent to 20% of trauma patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) will die from their injuries. Providing appropriate end-of-life care in this setting is difficult and often late in the patients' course. Patients are young, prognosis uncertain, and conflict common around goals of care. We hypothesized that early, structured communication in the trauma ICU would improve end-of-life care practice. Methods: Prospective, observational, prepost study on consecutive trauma patients admitted to the ICU before and after a structured palliative care intervention was integrated into standard ICU care. The program included part I, early (at admission) family bereavement support, assessment of prognosis, and patient preferences, and part II (within 72 hours) interdisciplinary family meeting. Data on goals of care discussions, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders and withdrawal of life support (W/D) were collected from physician rounds, family meetings, and medical records. Results: Eighty-three percent of patients received part I and 69% part II intervention. Discussion of goals of care by physicians on rounds increased from 4% to 36% of patient-days. During intervention, rates of mortality (14%), DNR (43%), and W/D (24%) were unchanged, but DNR orders and W/D were instituted earlier in hospital course. ICU length of stay was decreased in patients who died. Conclusions: Structured communication between physician and families resulted in earlier consensus around goals of care for dying trauma patients. Integration of early palliative care alongside aggressive trauma care can be accomplished without change in mortality and has the ability to change the culture of care in the trauma ICU.
Abstract: Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Royal United Hospital, Bath, UK Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK Surgical Intensive Care Unit, Oslo University Hospital Ulleval, Oslo, Norway Department of Cardiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Critical Care and Resuscitation, University of Warwick, Warwick Medical School, Warwick, UK
TL;DR: The goal of immediate post-cardiac arrest care is to optimize systemic perfusion, restore metabolic homeostasis, and support organ system function to increase the likelihood of intact neurological survival.
Abstract: There is increasing recognition that systematic post–cardiac arrest care after return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) can improve the likelihood of patient survival with good quality of life. This is based in part on the publication of results of randomized controlled clinical trials as well as a description of the post–cardiac arrest syndrome. 1–3 Post–cardiac arrest care has significant potential to reduce early mortality caused by hemodynamic instability and later morbidity and mortality from multiorgan failure and brain injury. 3,4 This section summarizes our evolving understanding of the hemodynamic, neurological, and metabolic abnormalities encountered in patients who are initially resuscitated from cardiac arrest. The initial objectives of post–cardiac arrest care are to ● Optimize cardiopulmonary function and vital organ perfusion. ● After out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, transport patient to an appropriate hospital with a comprehensive post–cardiac arrest treatment system of care that includes acute coronary interventions, neurological care, goal-directed critical care, and hypothermia. ● Transport the in-hospital post–cardiac arrest patient to an appropriate critical-care unit capable of providing comprehensive post–cardiac arrest care. ● Try to identify and treat the precipitating causes of the arrest and prevent recurrent arrest.
TL;DR: The goal of therapy for bradycardia or tachycardia is to rapidly identify and treat patients who are hemodynamically unstable or symptomatic due to the arrhythmia.
Abstract: The goal of therapy for bradycardia or tachycardia is to rapidly identify and treat patients who are hemodynamically unstable or symptomatic due to the arrhythmia. Drugs or, when appropriate, pacing may be used to control unstable or symptomatic bradycardia. Cardioversion or drugs or both may be used to control unstable or symptomatic tachycardia. ACLS providers should closely monitor stable patients pending expert consultation and should be prepared to aggressively treat those with evidence of decompensation.
Abstract: In contrast to adults, cardiac arrest in infants and children does not usually result from a primary cardiac cause. More often it is the terminal result of progressive respiratory failure or shock, also called an asphyxial arrest. Asphyxia begins with a variable period of systemic hypoxemia, hypercapnea, and acidosis, progresses to bradycardia and hypotension, and culminates with cardiac arrest.1 Another mechanism of cardiac arrest, ventricular fibrillation (VF) or pulseless ventricular tachycardia (VT), is the initial cardiac rhythm in approximately 5% to 15% of pediatric in-hospital and out-of-hospital cardiac arrests;2,–,9 it is reported in up to 27% of pediatric in-hospital arrests at some point during the resuscitation.6 The incidence of VF/pulseless VT cardiac arrest rises with age.2,4 Increasing evidence suggests that sudden unexpected death in young people can be associated with genetic abnormalities in myocyte ion channels resulting in abnormalities in ion flow (see “Sudden Unexplained Deaths,” below). Since 2010 marks the 50th anniversary of the introduction of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR),10 it seems appropriate to review the progressive improvement in outcome of pediatric resuscitation from cardiac arrest. Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest in infants and children in the 1980s was around 9%.11,12 Approximately 20 years later, that figure had increased to 17%,13,14 and by 2006, to 27%.15,–,17 In contrast to those favorable results from in-hospital cardiac arrest, overall survival to discharge from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in infants and children has not changed substantially in 20 years and remains at about 6% (3% for infants and 9% for children and adolescents).7,9 It is unclear why the improvement in outcome from in-hospital cardiac arrest has occurred, although earlier recognition and management of at-risk patients on general inpatient units …
University of Nebraska Medical Center1, University of Connecticut2, Harvard University3, Queen's University4, University of California, San Diego5, Stony Brook University6, University of Michigan7, National Institutes of Health8, Johns Hopkins University9, University of Barcelona10, University at Buffalo11, Summa Health System12, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio13, University of Queensland14, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital15, University of Western Australia16, University of Colorado Denver17, McMaster University18
TL;DR: These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia.
Abstract: It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.These guidelines are intended for use by healthcare professionals who care for patients at risk for hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), including specialists in infectious diseases, pulmonary diseases, critical care, and surgeons, anesthesiologists, hospitalists, and any clinicians and healthcare providers caring for hospitalized patients with nosocomial pneumonia. The panel's recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of HAP and VAP are based upon evidence derived from topic-specific systematic literature reviews.