Association between volume of severely injured patients and mortality in German trauma hospitals

The relationship between patient volume and mortality in NSW major trauma service hospitals

INTRODUCTION

Conventional wisdom is that Major Trauma Services (MTS) treating larger volumes of severe trauma patients will have better outcomes than lower volume centres, but recent studies from Europe have questioned this relationship. We aimed to determine if there is a relationship between patient volume and outcome in New South Wales (NSW) MTS hospitals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective observational study using data from the NSW State Trauma Registry from 2010 to 2019 inclusive. Adult patients with Injury Severity Score >15 transported directly to a NSW MTS were included. Outcome measures were mortality at hospital discharge, and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay. Generalised estimating equation models were created to determine the adjusted relationship between patient volume and the main outcome measures.

RESULTS

The mean annual patient volume of the MTS ranged from 127.4 to 282.0 patients whilst the observed mortality rates p.a. ranged from 10.4 % to 17.19 %. Multivariate analysis, using low volume MTS as the reference, did not demonstrate a significant difference in mortality between high and low volume MTS (adjusted OR: 1.14 95 % CI: 0.98-1.25, P = 0.087). There was however a significant correlation between volume and length of hospital stay (adjusted β; 0.024, 95 % CI, 0.182 - 1.089, P = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no mortality difference between high and low volume MTS demonstrated. Length of hospital stay significantly increased with increasing volume however.

Outcomes of care at higher-level trauma centers in octogenarians with a history of anticoagulant use who fall from ground level

BACKGROUND

The appropriate care of octogenarian trauma patients after a fall from ground level (FFGL) is a key factor for better outcomes. The purpose of this study is to use data from a national database to evaluate the outcomes of patients who are 80-89 years old with a history of anticoagulant use, sustained a FFGL, and were treated at a higher-level care institution.

METHODS

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database of the calendar year 2017-2018 was accessed for the study. All hospitalized trauma patients between the ages of 80-89 years old with a history of anticoagulant use and sustaining an injury after FFGL were included in the study. Other variables included in the study are sex [male], race [white], initial systolic blood pressure (SBP mmHg), Injury Severity Score (ISS), Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), hypotension with an SBP<110 mmHg and other comorbidities. The outcomes of the patients were compared with the care at higher-level trauma centers (Level I & Level II) and lower-level trauma centers (Level III) using propensity matched analysis.

RESULTS

After propensity matching, 2348 patients were identified in each group. There was no clinically significant difference between the patients' characteristics who were treated at higher-level and lower-level care centers. A paired matched analysis showed greater mortality in patients who were treated at higher-level care centers compared to lower-level care centers (3.7% vs 2.6%, P = 0.03). The absolute difference in mortality was 1.1%[95% CI: 0.001, 0.022] which may not have any clinical relevance. A greater number of patients were discharged to home and a lesser number of patients were discharged to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) when they were treated at higher-level trauma centers.

CONCLUSION & RELEVANCE

The care at higher-level trauma centers did not show any benefit in-hospital mortality in the short term. A higher number of patients was discharged to home without assistance.

Mortality after hospital admission for trauma in Norway: A retrospective observational national cohort study

BACKGROUND

National quality data for trauma care in Norway have not previously been reported. We have therefore assessed crude and risk-adjusted 30-day mortality in trauma cases after primary hospital admission on national and regional levels for 36 acute care hospitals and four regional trauma centres.

METHODS

All patients in the Norwegian Trauma Registry in 2015-2018 were included. Crude and risk-adjusted 30-day mortality was assessed for the total cohort and for severe injuries (Injury Severity Score ≥16), and individual and combined effects of health region, hospital level, and hospital size were studied.

RESULTS

28,415 trauma cases were included. Crude mortality was 3.1% for the total cohort and 14.5% for severe injuries, with no statistically significant difference between regions. Risk-adjusted survival was lower in acute care hospitals than in trauma centres (0.48 fewer excess survivors per 100 patients, P<0.0001), amongst severely injured patients in the Northern health region (4.80 fewer excess survivors per 100 patients, P = 0.004), and in hospitals with <100 trauma admissions per year (0.65 fewer excess survivors than in hospitals with ≥100 admissions, P = 0.01). However, the only statistically significant effects in a multivariable logistic case mix-adjusted descriptive model were hospital level and health region. Case-mix adjusted odds ratio for survival for severely injured patients directly admitted to a trauma centre vs. an acute care hospital was 2.04 (95% CI 1.04-4.00, P = 0.04), and if admitted in the Northern health region vs. all other health regions was 0.47 (95% CI 0.27-0.84, P = 0.01). The proportion of cases admitted directly to the regional trauma centre in the sparsely populated Northern health region was half of that in the other regions (18.4% vs. 37.6%, P<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

Differences in risk-adjusted survival for severe injuries can to a large extent be attributed to whether patients are directly admitted to a trauma centre. This should have implications for planning of transport capacity in remote areas.

Trauma Patient Volume and the Quality of Care: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Healthcare stakeholders in the Netherlands came to an agreement in 2022 to deal with present and future challenges in healthcare. Among others, this agreement contains clear statements regarding the concentration of trauma patients, including the minimal required number of annual severe trauma patients for Major Trauma Centers. This review investigates the effects of trauma patient volumes on several domains of the quality of healthcare.

METHODS

PubMed was searched; studies published during the last 10 years reporting quantitative data on trauma patient volume and quality of healthcare were included. Results were summarized and categorized into the quality domains of healthcare.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies were included with a total of 1,517,848 patients. A positive association between trauma patient volume and survival was observed in 11/13 studies with adjusted analyses. Few studies addressed other quality domains: efficiency (n = 5), safety (n = 2), and time aspects of care (n = 4). None covered people-centeredness, equitability, or integrated care.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies showed a better survival of trauma patients when treated in high-volume hospitals compared to lower volume hospitals. However, the ideal threshold could not be determined. The association between trauma volume and other domains of the quality of healthcare remains unclear.

Process times of severely injured patients in the emergency room are associated with patient volume: a registry-based analysis

PURPOSE

Hospitals involved in the care of severely injured patients treat a varying number of such cases per year. Large hospitals were expected to show a better performance regarding process times in the emergency room. The present investigation analyzed whether this assumption was true, based on a large national trauma registry.

METHODS

A total of 129,193 severely injured patients admitted primarily to one of 675 German hospitals and documented in the TraumaRegister DGU® were considered for this analysis. The analysis covered a 5 years time period (2013-2017). Hospitals were grouped by their average number of annually treated severe trauma patients into five categories ranging from 'less than 10 patients' to '100 or more'. The following process times were compared: pre-hospital time; time from admission to diagnostic procedures (sonography, X-ray, computed tomography), time from admission to selected emergency interventions and time in the emergency room.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight high volume hospitals treated 45% of all patients, while 30% of hospitals treated less than ten cases per year. Injury severity and mortality increased with volume per year. Whole-body computed tomography (WB-CT) was used less frequently in small hospitals (53%) as compared to the large ones (83%). The average time to WB-CT fell from 28 min. in small hospitals to 19 min. in high volume hospitals. There was a linear trend to shorter performance times for all diagnostic procedures (sonography, X-ray, WB-CT) when the annual volume increased. A similar trend was observed for time to blood transfusion (58 min versus 44 min). The median time in the emergency room fell from 74 min to 53 min, but there was no clear trend for the time to the first emergency surgery. Due to longer travel times, prehospital time was about 10 min higher in patients admitted to high volume hospitals compared to patients admitted to smaller local hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Process times in the emergency room decreased consistently with an increase of patient volume per year. This decrease, however, was associated with a longer prehospital time.

Road traffic accident-related thoracic trauma: Epidemiology, injury pattern, outcome, and impact on mortality—A multicenter observational study

Background

Thoracic trauma is a major cause of death in trauma patients and road traffic accident (RTA)-related thoracic injuries have different characteristics than those with non-RTA related thoracic traumas, but this have been poorly described. The main objective was to investigate the epidemiology, injury pattern and outcome of patients suffering a significant RTA-related thoracic injury. Secondary objective was to investigate the influence of serious thoracic injuries on mortality, compared to other serious injuries.

Methods

We performed a multicenter observational study including patients of the Rhône RTA registry between 1997 and 2016 sustaining a moderate to lethal (Abbreviated Injury Scale, AIS≥2) injury in any body region. A subgroup (AISThorax≥2 group) included those with one or more AIS≥2 thoracic injury. Descriptive statistics were performed for the main outcome and a multivariate logistic regression was computed for our secondary outcome.

Results

A total of 176,346 patients were included in the registry and 6,382 (3.6%) sustained a thoracic injury. Among those, median age [IQR] was 41 [25–58] years, and 68.9% were male. The highest incidence of thoracic injuries in female patients was in the 70–79 years age group, while this was observed in the 20–29 years age group among males. Most patients were car occupants (52.3%). Chest wall injuries were the most frequent thoracic injuries (62.1%), 52.4% of which were multiple rib fractures. Trauma brain injuries (TBI) were the most frequent concomitant injuries (29.1%). The frequency of MAISThorax = 2 injuries increased with age while that of MAISThorax = 3 injuries decreased. A total of 16.2% patients died. Serious (AIS≥3) thoracic injuries (OR = 12.4, 95%CI [8.6;18.0]) were strongly associated with mortality but less than were TBI (OR = 27.9, 95%CI [21.3;36.7]).

Conclusion

Moderate to lethal RTA-related thoracic injuries were rare. Multiple ribs fractures, pulmonary contusions, and sternal fractures were the most frequent anatomical injuries. The incidence, injury pattern and mechanisms greatly vary across age groups.

Survival factors in patients of high fall - A 10-year level-I multi-trauma center study

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to investigate the characteristics of patients after free falls at the Level-I trauma centers. The factors associated with survival were differentiated.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted at the National Taiwan University Hospital, the Hsin-Chu branch, and the Yun-Lin branch, all accredited as Level-I trauma centers between January 2010 and September 2020. Adult patients with falls from height of more than one story (i.e. 3.6 m) were included. Clinical data were obtained from electronic medical records. Odds ratios (OR) were computed with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for significant parameters for survival.

RESULTS

A total of 371 patients were included. Only 2 survived to discharge with poor neurologic outcomes in 101 patients with OHCA. The overall mortality rate was 98% and 11% in patients with and without OHCA. A higher falling height with a one-meter increase (OR, 1.14, 95% CI, 1.10-1.19) was significantly related to OHCA, especially the height over 6 m (OR, 3.07, 95% CI, 1.19-7.94). A higher trauma injury severity score (TRISS) was significantly related to survival among patients without OHCA (OR, 1.07, 95% CI, 1.04-1.11), especially TRISS≧0.945 (OR, 5.21, 95% CI, 1.28-21.24). Patients without severe head/neck injury of Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS)≧3 (OR, 0.17, 95% CI, 0.07-0.42) were positively associated with survivors among patients without OHCA.

CONCLUSION

Patients with traumatic OHCA following falls had a high mortality rate of 98% and dismal outcomes, compared with non-traumatic OHCA. Falling heights, especially over 6 m was associated with OHCA. Patients without OHCA had a mortality rate of 11%. Patients with a higher TRISS, especially more than 0.945, or without severe head injury had more chances to survive in the non-OHCA group. The study provided the evidence to guide termination of high futility resuscitation for traumatic OHCA secondary to falls to conserve the clinical resources.

Validating the trauma care system developed by Yokohama City local government

Background

Since becoming the city with the first government‐designated major trauma center in 2014, Yokohama has been striving to centralize care for extensive trauma patients. Hence, in this study, the Yokohama City Major Trauma Care Advisory Committee tested the efficacy of the centralization of care for trauma patients.

Methods

This investigation included all cases of deaths due to road traffic accidents that occurred in the 2‐year period following the establishment of the major trauma center. The probability of survival was calculated using data provided by the police and fire departments. Cases that died despite having a probability of survival of 50% or more were included in the survey undertaken by physicians recommended by the Japanese Association for the Surgery of Trauma, who visited the hospitals.

Results

Of those surveyed, preventable trauma death accounted for 1 case (1.7%) and potentially preventable trauma death accounted for 7 (11.9%), compared with 5 (9.8%) and 11 (21%) cases, respectively, in the period 2009–2010.

Conclusions

Comparing the survey conducted before establishment of the major trauma center, those results support the benefits of centralizing care for severe trauma cases. We aim to continue improving trauma care provided through the center along with the Yokohama Medical Control Council and to overcome challenges that were identified through the peer review.

OUP accepted manuscript

Background

Risk-adjusted mortality (RAM) analysis and comparisons of clinically relevant subsets of trauma patients allow hospitals to assess performance in different processes of care. The aim of the study was to develop a RAM model and compare RAM ratio (RAMR) in subsets of severely injured adult patients treated in university hospitals (UHs) and emergency hospitals (EHs) in Sweden.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of the Swedish trauma registry data (2013 to 2017) comparing RAMR in patients (aged 15 years or older and New Injury Severity Score (NISS) of more than 15) in the total population (TP) and in multisystem blunt (MB), truncal penetrating (PEN), and severe traumatic brain injury (STBI) subsets treated in UHs and EHs. The RAM model included the variables age, NISS, ASA Physical Status Classification System Score, and physiology on arrival.

Results

In total, 6690 patients were included in the study (4485 from UHs and 2205 from EHs). The logistic regression model showed a good fit. RAMR was 4.0, 3.8, 7.4, and 8.5 percentage points lower in UH versus EH for TP (P < 0.001), MB (P < 0.001), PEN (P = 0.096), and STBI (P = 0.005), respectively. The TP and MB subsets were subgrouped in with (+) and without (−) traumatic brain injury (TBI). RAMR was 7.5 and 7.0, respectively, percentage points lower in UHs than in EHs in TP + TBI and MB + TBI (both P < 0.001). In the TP–TBI (P = 0.027) and MB–TBI (P = 0.107) subsets the RAMR was 1.6 and 1.8 percentage points lower, respectively.

Conclusion

The lower RAMR in UHs versus EH were due to differences in TBI-related mortality. No evidence supported that Swedish EHs provide inferior quality of care for trauma patients without TBI or for patients with penetrating injuries.

The value of trauma patients' centralization: an analysis of a regional Italian Trauma System performance with TMPM-ICD-9

BACKGROUND

In recent years, many studies showed that the Trauma Mortality Probability Model (TMPM-ICD-9) had better calibration compared to other ICD-9-based models and to the ones based to the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). The study aims to assess the validity of TMPM-ICD-9 in predicting injury severity in an Italian region and, through this model, to assess the performances of the Trauma Systems SIAT Romagna.

METHODS

Administrative data of trauma patients admitted in the Trauma System of SIAT Romagna, in Northern Italy, from 2014 to 2018 were obtained. The XISS, an indirect indicator of Injury Severity Score (ISS) and the TMPM-POD (Probability of Death) were calculated from ICD-9-CM codes. Only patients with XISS > 15 were included. Student t-test, Mann-Whitney test and Chi-square test were used for univariate analyses, while logistic regression for multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

3907 trauma patients with XISS > 15 were included. The Hub hospital (HUB) received 47.1% of these patients. Patients treated in HUB had higher TMPM-POD than in SPOKE + PST (mean TMPM-POD ± SD: HUB 0.093 ± 0.091, SPOKE + PST 0.082 ± 0.90, p < 0.027), but only age and sex were significant risk factors for centralization at multivariate analyses. Higher age (73.1 ± 21.2 vs 66.9 ± 21.2, p < 0.001), higher XISS (16(9) vs 16(4), p < 0.001) and higher TMPM-POD (0.15 ± 0.14 vs 0.08 ± 0.08, p < 0.001) resulted significant risk factors for mortality at multivariate analysis. Lower age, higher XISS and lower Trauma Centers (TC) level were significant risk factors for splenectomy at multivariate analysis. The splenectomy rate was 1.3% in HUB and of 2.2% in SPOKE + PST (Risk Ratio = 0.4, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Present analysis proved the validity of TMPM-ICD-9 in predicting mortality of trauma patients in an Italian region. Furthermore, the usefulness of data extracted from an administrative database to assess the performance of a TS and the importance of an adequate centralization process have emerged. Even with a higher TMPM-POD and with the same mortality rate, HUB showed a higher spleen salvage rate compared to SPOKE + PST. However, thanks to this model, an improvable centralization process in SIAT Romagna was found in the study period. Probably, an enhanced centralization would have improved the spleen salvage rate, which is an important quality indicator in the evaluation of the performance of the TS.

Correlation between Hospital Volume of Severely Injured Patients and In-Hospital Mortality of Severely Injured Pediatric Patients in Japan: A Nationwide 5-Year Retrospective Study

Appropriate trauma care systems, suitable for children are needed; thus, this retrospective nationwide study evaluated the correlation between the annual total hospital volume of severely injured patients and in-hospital mortality of severely injured pediatric patients (SIPP) and compared clinical parameters and outcomes per hospital between low- and high-volume hospitals. During the five-year study period, we enrolled 53,088 severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score, ≥16); 2889 (5.4%) were pediatric patients aged <18 years. Significant Spearman correlation analysis was observed between numbers of total patients and SIPP per hospital (p < 0.001), and the number of SIPP per hospital who underwent interhospital transportation and/or urgent treatment was correlated with the total number of severely injured patients per hospital. Actual in-hospital mortality, per hospital, of SIPP patients was significantly correlated with the total number patients per hospital (p < 0.001,). The total number of SIPP, requiring urgent treatment, was higher in the high-volume than in the low-volume hospital group. No significant differences in actual in-hospital morality (p = 0.246, 2.13 (0–8.33) vs. 0 (0–100)) and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) values (p = 0.244, 0.31 (0–0.79) vs. 0 (0–4.87)) were observed between the two groups; however, the 13 high-volume hospitals had an SMR of <1.0. Centralizing severely injured patients, regardless of age, to a higher volume hospital might contribute to survival benefits of SIPP.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use in Trauma Quality Improvement Program centers: Temporal trends and future directions

BACKGROUND

Increased clinical experience and the decreased need for systemic anticoagulation have renewed interest in the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for posttraumatic respiratory and cardiopulmonary failure. The objectives of this study were to describe the incidence and temporal trends of ECMO use at trauma centers, the outcomes of trauma patients undergoing ECMO, and the characteristics of trauma centers providing ECMO.

METHODS

Data were derived from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program data set. We included adults with at least one severe injury admitted to a level I or II trauma center between 2012 and 2016 who received at least 1 day of mechanical ventilation. Patients were categorized based on whether or not they received ECMO during their admission. The primary outcome was change in the incidence of ECMO across study years. We also evaluated patient outcomes and variation in ECMO volumes across centers.

RESULTS

Of 194,314 severely injured patients undergoing mechanical ventilation across 450 centers, 269 (0.14%) received ECMO. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients had significantly higher mortality than non-ECMO patients (32% vs. 19%). The standardized rate of ECMO from 2012 to 2016 increased significantly from 75.2 to 179.0 cases per 100,000 severely injured patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. The average annual growth rate was 24%. Of the 82 centers(18%) reporting at least 1 ECMO trauma case, 34 (41%) reported only a single case.

CONCLUSION

The use of ECMO for trauma, although rare, is rapidly increasing. Two thirds of patients who receive ECMO following traumatic injury survive their hospitalization. These data suggest that ECMO represents a potential treatment strategy for trauma patients with respiratory or cardiopulmonary failure. However, given the rarity of the procedure, there exists an opportunity to develop practice guidelines regarding the indications for, and approach to, ECMO in the setting of trauma.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

High acuity polytrauma centers in orthopaedic trauma: Decreasing patient mortality with effective resource utilization

BACKGROUND

There is a select number of massive-volume, high-acuity trauma centers (HACs) in the United States. Expertise in polytrauma care has been associated with improved mortality in general surgery trauma, though has not been investigated in orthopaedic trauma. With complex polytrauma proficiency comes the inherent risk of intensive care, complications, and prolonged inpatient stays, without a commensurate increase in allocated resources. The purpose of this study was to compare mortality, complications, and length of stay in polytraumatized orthopaedic patients treated at HACs vs. low-acuity trauma centers (LACs).

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for orthopaedic injuries with injury severity score (ISS)>15 and mortality, complications, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, ventilation duration, and demographics. Hospitals where at least 13% (median percentage of patients with ISS > 15 admitted to all hospitals) of total admissions had an ISS>15 were classified as HAC; all others were LACs.

RESULTS

HACs admitted 86.8% of 28,314 patients with ISS>15. On univariate analysis, patients at HACs have 16% decreased odds of in-hospital mortality vs. LACs (p=0.005); the effect increased to 27% (p=0.002) on multivariate analysis. Patients at HACs have 63% greater odds of ICU admission (p<0.001), 48% higher odds of ventilatory support (p=<0.001), 38% increased odds of unplanned reoperation (p=0.007), and 37% increased odds of medical complications (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, secondary outcome measures showed no significant difference between HACs and LACs. Patients at HACs had 2.8 days longer length-of-stay (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Severely injured orthopaedic trauma patients have decreased mortality at HACs, despite having a higher average ISS and a higher prevalence of obesity and active smoking. While there is a higher incidence of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, complications, and unplanned reoperation on univariate analysis, correction for ISS and patient factors enhances the effect of HACs on mortality, but removes the effect on secondary measures. Thus, HACs are life-saving institutions for polytraumatized orthopaedic patients, and the known resource demand of these hospitals is supported by their favorable outcome profile.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Why do some trauma patients die while others survive? A matched-pair analysis based on data from Trauma Register DGU®

PURPOSE

The mortality rate for severely injured patients with the injury severity score (ISS) ≥16 has decreased in Germany. There is robust evidence that mortality is influenced not only by the acute trauma itself but also by physical health, age and sex. The aim of this study was to identify other possible influences on the mortality of severely injured patients.

METHODS

In a matched-pair analysis of data from Trauma Register DGU®, non-surviving patients from Germany between 2009 and 2014 with an ISS≥16 were compared with surviving matching partners. Matching was performed on the basis of age, sex, physical health, injury pattern, trauma mechanism, conscious state at the scene of the accident based on the Glasgow coma scale, and the presence of shock on arrival at the emergency room.

RESULTS

We matched two homogeneous groups, each of which consisted of 657 patients (535 male, average age 37 years). There was no significant difference in the vital parameters at the scene of the accident, the length of the pre-hospital phase, the type of transport (ground or air), pre-hospital fluid management and amounts, ISS, initial care level, the length of the emergency room stay, the care received at night or from on-call personnel during the weekend, the use of abdominal sonographic imaging, the type of X-ray imaging used, and the percentage of patients who developed sepsis. We found a significant difference in the new injury severity score, the frequency of multi-organ failure, hemoglobine at admission, base excess and international normalized ratio in the emergency room, the type of accident (fall or road traffic accident), the pre-hospital intubation rate, reanimation, in-hospital fluid management, the frequency of transfusion, tomography (whole-body computed tomography), and the necessity of emergency intervention.

CONCLUSION

Previously postulated factors such as the level of care and the length of the emergency room stay did not appear to have a significant influence in this study. Further studies should be conducted to analyse the identified factors with a view to optimising the treatment of severely injured patients. Our study shows that there are significant factors that can predict or influence the mortality of severely injured patients.

Comparative analysis of MGAP, GAP, and RISC2 as predictors of patient outcome and emergency interventional need in emergency room treatment of the injured

PURPOSE

Little is known about the capabilities of triage and risk scores to predict the outcomes of injured patients, other than mortality, or to determine the need for trauma center resources.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of prospectively gathered monocenter data on consecutively admitted adult emergency room trauma patients. For each patient, the GAP (Glasgow Coma Scale, Age and Pressure), MGAP (mechanism + GAP) scores and the revised injury severity classification 2 (RISC2) were calculated. The predictive performance of these scores was compared for the assessment of trauma severity, hospital resource need and early patient outcomes (area under the receiver operator characteristics, AUROC).

RESULTS

2112 patients were evaluated [mean age 49.1 years; Injury Severity Score (ISS) 9.5]. GAP, MGAP, and RISC2 worked best at predicting mortality (AUROC 93.2, 93.5 and 96.1%, respectively). Other endpoints such as ISS > 15, emergency interventions, disability status, and return-not-home were predicted less precisely by these three scores, better by RISC2 (AUROC range 66.2-88.8%) than by (M)GAP-scores (55.2-84.1%), except for preclinical interventions. Over- and undertriage rates for the (M)GAP scores varied between 27.5-53.4% and 10.4-30%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The almost comparable precision of the three risk scores in the prediction of outcome or interventional need following trauma, and the fact, that the RISC2 can only be calculated following extensive diagnostics, favor earlier applicable (M)GAP scoring in the emergency setting. Overall, due to its easier use, the GAP appears to be the most preferable for the early assessment and triage of the injured in a trauma setting based on this European trauma center experience (NCT02165137).

Severe trauma patient volume was associated with decreased mortality

BACKGROUND

The relationship between the severe trauma patient volume and outcomes is still being debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between severe trauma patient volume, hospital mortality, and door-to-definitive treatment time.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study that used recorded data from the Japan Trauma Data Bank. We included severe trauma patients who had an Injury Severity Score greater than 16. Hospitals were categorized according to their annual severe trauma patient volume: low volume, 1-49 (reference), medium volume, 50-99, and high volume, ≥ 100]. The association of volume categories with in-hospital mortality was evaluated by use of a mixed-effects model adjusted for patient demographics and trauma severity. Additionally, the association of volume categories with in-hospital mortality among subgroups and with door-to-definitive treatment time were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 74,957 severe trauma patients from 213 hospitals were analyzed. In-hospital mortality was 15.7%, 15.2%, and 12.8% in the low volume, medium volume, and high volume groups, respectively. High volume was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality compared to low volume (odds ratio = 0.757, 95% confidence interval = 0.626-0.916). However, medium volume was not associated with reduced in-hospital mortality. Among subgroups, high volume was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality only in the probability of survival ≥ 0.5. Door-to-definitive treatment time was decreased in high volume, however, high volume was not associated with reduced in-hospital mortality among the patients who underwent definitive treatment and the patients whose ps < 0.5.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe trauma patient volume was associated with decreased mortality by decreasing preventable trauma death.

Early risk stratification of in hospital mortality following a ground level fall in geriatric patients with normal physiological parameters

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors of mortality for geriatric patients who fell from ground level at home and had a normal physiological examination at the scene.

METHODS

Patients aged 65 and above, who sustained a ground level fall (GLF) with normal scene Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score 15, systolic blood pressure (SBP) > 90 and <160 mmHg, heart rate ≥ 60 and ≤100 beats per minute) from the 2012-2014 National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) data sets were included in the study. Patients' characteristics, existing comorbidities [history of smoking, chronic kidney disease (CKD), cerebrovascular accident (CVA), diabetes mellitus (DM), and hypertension (HTN) requiring medication], injury severity scores (ISS), American College of Surgeons' (ACS) trauma center designation level, and outcomes were examined for each case. Risks factors of mortality were identified using bivariate analysis and logistic regression modeling.

RESULTS

A total of 40,800 patients satisfied the study inclusion criteria. The findings of the logistic regression model for mortality using the covariates age, sex, race, SBP, ISS, ACS trauma level, smoking status, CKD, CVA, DM, and HTN were associated with a higher risk of mortality (p < .05). The fitted model had an Area under the Curve (AUC) measure of 0.75.

CONCLUSION

Cases of geriatric patients who look normal after a fall from ground level at home can still be associated with higher risk of in-hospital death, particularly those who are older, male, have certain comorbidities. These higher-risk patients should be triaged to the hospital with proper evaluation and management.

A novel scoring system to predict the requirement for surgical intervention in victims of motor vehicle crashes: Development and validation using independent cohorts

Background

Given that there are still considerable number of facilities which lack surgical specialists round the clock across the world, the ability to estimate the requirement for emergency surgery in victims of motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) can ensure appropriate resource allocation. In this study, a surgical intervention in victims of MVC (SIM) score was developed and validated, using independent patient cohorts.

Methods

We retrospectively identified MVC victims in a nationwide trauma registry (2004–2016). Adults ≥ 15 years who presented with palpable pulse were included. Patients with missing data on the type/date of surgery were excluded. Patient were allocated to development or validation cohorts based on the date of injury. After missing values were imputed, predictors of the need for emergency thoracotomy and/or laparotomy were identified with multivariate logistic regression, and scores were then assigned using odds ratios. The SIM score was validated with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and calibration plots of SIM score-derived probability and observed rates of emergency surgery.

Results

We assigned 13,328 and 12,348 patients to the development and validation cohorts, respectively. Age, motor vehicle collision and vital signs on hospital arrival were identified as independent predictors for emergency thoracotomy and/or laparotomy, and SIM score was developed as 0–9 scales. The score has a good discriminatory power (AUROC = 0.79; 95% confidence interval = 0.77–0.81), and both estimated and observed rates of emergency surgery increased stepwise from 1% at a score ≤ 1 to almost 40% at a score ≥ 8 with linear calibration plots.

Conclusions

The SIM score was developed and validated to accurately estimate the need for emergent thoracotomy and/or laparotomy in MVC victims.

Inequality of trauma care under a single-payer universal coverage system in Taiwan: a nationwide cohort study from the National Health Insurance Research Database

​OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of lower socioeconomic status on the outcome of major torso trauma patients under the single-payer system by the National Health Insurance (NHI) in Taiwan. ​DESIGN: A nationwide, retrospective cohort study. ​SETTING: An observational study from the NHI Research Database (NHIRD), involving all the insurees in the NHI. ​PARTICIPANTS: Patients with major torso trauma (injury severity score ≥16) from 2003 to 2013 in Taiwan were included. International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes were used to identify trauma patients. A total of 64 721 patients were initially identified in the NHIRD. After applying the exclusion criteria, 20 009 patients were included in our statistical analysis. ​PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality, and we analysed patients with different income levels and geographic regions. Multiple logistic regression was used to control for confounding variables. ​RESULTS: In univariate analysis, geographic disparities and low-income level were both risk factors for in-hospital mortality for patients with major torso trauma (p=0.002 and <0.001, respectively). However, in multivariate analysis, only a low-income level remained an independent risk factor for increased in-hospital mortality (p<0.001). ​CONCLUSION: Even with the NHI, wealth inequity still led to different outcomes for major torso trauma in Taiwan. Health policies must focus on this vulnerable group to eliminate inequality in trauma care.

Evaluating the outcomes of blunt thoracic trauma in elderly patients following a fall from a ground level: higher level care institution vs. lower level care institution

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study is to evaluate the outcomes of higher level care institutions of elderly patients who sustained a thoracic injury after a ground-level fall (GLF).

HYPOTHESIS

Higher level care institutions have a better survival.

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) data set of 2012-2014 was accessed for the study. All patients, 65 years of age and older, who experienced a GLF and sustained a thoracic injury, were included in the study. Patient demography, injury characteristics including injury severity score (ISS), Glasgow coma scale (GCS) motor score, comorbidities, and patient outcomes were compared between the higher level care institution [American College of Surgeon (ACS) level I and level II trauma centers) and lower level care institution (ACS level III and level IV and unranked-trauma centers). On univariate analysis, some significant patient characteristic differences were found; therefore, propensity score matching and paired analyses were performed. All P values are two sided, and a P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Out of the 15,256 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria, approximately 52% (7994) of patients were treated at a higher level care institution. On univariate analysis, significant differences were found between the lower level care institution and higher level care institution regarding male gender (44.2% vs.46%, P = 0.03), ISS median [interquartile] (9 [5-12] vs. 9 [5-13], P < 0.001), history of alcohol abuse (4.2% vs. 5.3%, P = 0.007), dementia (8.7% vs. 9.8%, P = 0.02), bleeding disorder or history of anticoagulation use (17% vs. 18.4%, P = 0.03), obesity (5% vs. 6.6%, P < 0.001), and abbreviated injury scale (AIS) thorax (2 [1-3] vs. 3 [2-3], P < 0.001). After propensity score matching, the majority of the characteristics were balanced with few exceptions, including ISS, AIS ≥ 3 head and abdomen, and P values < 0.05. The overall in-hospital mortality was not significantly different between the higher level care institution vs. the lower level care institution (4.4% vs. 3.9%, P = 0.14). The median hospital length of stay and 95% confidence interval between both groups was (5 [5, 5] and 5 [5, 5], P = 0.72).

CONCLUSION

Treating elderly patients with blunt chest trauma in higher level care institutions failed to show any benefit in overall survival or hospital length of stay.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

STUDY TYPE

Observational cohort.

[Scientific impact of the TraumaRegister DGU®]

BACKGROUND

The trauma registry of the German Trauma Society (TraumaRegister DGU®) is not only a tool for quality management but also for research purposes.

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of the impact of the TraumaRegister DGU® on scientific output and patient treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Analysis of publications from the TraumaRegister DGU® with respect to numbers, impact factors, journals, citations and presentations.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The number and impact factors of publications from the TraumaRegister DGU® rose steeply during the last 10 years and in the last 3 years consisted of 25 publications per year. More than two thirds of them were published in high quality international journals and reflect the great scientific importance. For the German speaking readership and the specific aspects of treatment of the severely injured relevant to Germany, the large number of German language articles are just as important. Independent of the impact factor publications in Deutsches Ärzteblatt, the journal with the highest circulation and Der Unfallchirurg play the most important role. A large amount of scientific information gained from the TraumaRegister DGU® has been included in treatment guidelines and structures. The register is a basic prerequisite for the TraumaNetzwerk DGU®. Since almost all severely injured patients in Germany are now included in the registry, it is possible to obtain epidemiologically reliable data of treatment and outcomes for these patient groups.

The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients remains under debate and this has consequences for the designation of trauma centers.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched from 1980 up to January 30, 2018, to identify studies that describe the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients (preferably Injury Severity Score above 15). Selection of relevant studies, data extraction, and critical appraisal of the methodological quality were performed by two independent reviewers. Pooled adjusted and unadjusted estimates of the effect of volume on in-hospital mortality, only in study populations with Injury Severity Score greater than 15, were calculated with a random-effects meta-analysis. A mixed effects linear regression model was used to assess hospital volume as continuous parameter.

RESULTS

Eighteen observational cohort studies were included. The majority (13 [72%] of 18) reported an association between higher hospital or surgeon volume and lower mortality rate. Overall, the quality of the included studies was reasonable, with insufficient adjustment as one of the most common limitations. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 222,418 patients. High hospital volume (>240 admitted severely injured patients per year) was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.94). Four studies were included in the regression model, providing a beta of -0.17 per 10 patients (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.07). There was no clear association between surgeon volume and mortality rates based on three available studies.

CONCLUSION

Our systematic overview of the literature reveals a modest association between high-volume centers and lower mortality in severely injured patients, suggesting that designation of high-volume centers might improve outcomes among severely injured patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis, level III. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO registration ID CRD42017056729.

Increased Severe Trauma Patient Volume is Associated With Survival Benefit and Reduced Total Health Care Costs: A Retrospective Observational Study Using a Japanese Nationwide Administrative Database

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the associations of severe trauma patient volume with survival benefit and health care costs.

BACKGROUND

The effect of trauma patient volume on survival benefit is inconclusive, and reports on its effects on health care costs are scarce.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study, including trauma patients who were transferred to government-approved tertiary emergency hospitals, or hospitals with an intensive care unit that provided an equivalent quality of care, using a Japanese nationwide administrative database. We categorized hospitals according to their annual severe trauma patient volumes [1 to 50 (reference), 51 to 100, 101 to 150, 151 to 200, and ≥201]. We evaluated the associations of volume categories with in-hospital survival and total cost per admission using a mixed-effects model adjusting for patient severity and hospital characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 116,329 patients from 559 hospitals were analyzed. Significantly increased in-hospital survival rates were observed in the second, third, fourth, and highest volume categories compared with the reference category [94.2% in the highest volume category vs 88.8% in the reference category, adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval, 95% CI) = 1.75 (1.49-2.07)]. Furthermore, significantly lower costs (in US dollars) were observed in the second and fourth categories [mean (standard deviation) for fourth vs reference = $17,800 ($17,378) vs $20,540 ($32,412), adjusted difference (95% CI) = -$2559 (-$3896 to -$1221)].

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals with high volumes of severe trauma patients were significantly associated with a survival benefit and lower total cost per admission.

Volume-outcome relationship in severe operative trauma surgery: A retrospective cohort study using a Japanese nationwide administrative database

BACKGROUND

The relationship between hospital case volume and in-hospital mortality, often referred to as the volume-outcome relationship, has been studied in various types of surgery. Despite its usefulness in policymaking, it has not been reported in operative trauma surgery. This study aimed to identify the volume-outcome relationship in severe operative trauma surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a risk adjustment method based on the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision Codes in a Japanese nationwide administrative database. Patients discharged from July 1, 2010, to March 31, 2015, who underwent severe operative trauma surgery, defined as having a mortality rate equal to or greater than 10%, were included. A logistic regression model with random effects was used for analysis. Annual hospital case volume was categorized into 4 groups: <6 (reference group), 6 to 11, 12 to 17, and ≥18. Subgroup analysis on head and torso trauma surgery was conducted.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 18,382 patients from 964 hospitals. Overall mortality was 19.7%. The adjusted odds ratio for mortality did not reduce significantly in the higher hospital case volume category. Subgroup analysis revealed that the adjusted odds ratio reduced significantly in the subgroup of torso surgery (<6 cases/y [reference] vs ≥6 cases/y; adjusted odds ratio, 0.55; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.73), but not in the operative head trauma surgery subgroup.

CONCLUSION

A volume-outcome relationship was not identified in severe operative trauma surgery but was observed in the operative torso trauma surgery subgroup.

[Empirical evaluation of quality indicators for severely injured patients in the TraumaRegister DGU®]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

A systematic assessment of the quality of medical treatment by using key indicators has been required in Germany for many years. These quality indicators (QI) have to satisfy many requirements. Besides an expert review an empirical data-based evaluation is also necessary. The TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) has reported QI in the annual reports from the beginning. The objective of this study was to validate 40 QI for the treatment of severely injured patients reviewed by experts using data from the TR-DGU.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The association of the 40 QI with hospital mortality was verified using healthcare data from the TR-DGU from a 5‑year period (2012-2016). Of these 26 QI consider events while the remaining 14 QI are key indicators, such as time spent in the trauma room. To compensate differences in injury severity, adjusted mortality rates were calculated using the revised injury severity classification (RISC) II score. For this two different approaches were chosen: the hospital-based approach classifies all hospitals into three categories and analyzes the grade of fulfilment of the indicator. The indicator-based approach considers the adjusted mortality depending on the grade of fulfilment of the indicator.

RESULTS

The analysis was based on 111,656 cases documented in the TR-DGU (mean age 50 years; 70 % male). The data analysis showed an obvious correlation with mortality for half of the QI, including only three procedural times. A clear correlation in both approaches was shown for two QI: prehospital capnometry in intubated patients and sonography used for patients without whole body computed tomography (CT) scans. Of the 20 QI with a positive result 15 were also positively rated by the experts. Of the 14 QI reported annually since 2017 in the TR-DGU report, 8 (57%) showed a clear correlation with mortality.

CONCLUSION

There is no doubt regarding the necessity of scientifically assessing QI. Approximately half of the evaluated QI showed an empirical association with mortality. Interventions and events showed better results than measurements of procedural times; however, many QI may require a refined definition. The interpretation of the results is still challenging due to differences in the patient groups. Secondary endpoints, such as hospital length of stay and quality of life after trauma were not considered here.

Refractory lupus nephritis: a survey

‘Refractory lupus nephritis’ is a frequently used term but poorly defined. We conducted a survey among nephrologists and rheumatologists to spot the diversity of perceptions of this term and to better understand the clinical practice related to ‘refractory lupus nephritis’. A total of 145 questionnaires completed by lupus nephritis experts were available for analysis, of which 52% were nephrologists, 34% rheumatologists, and 13% internists. Response to induction treatment was mostly assessed after six months (58%), but assessment at three months was more common with the use of the EURO lupus protocol than with other treatment protocols. Rheumatologists used urinary sediment to assess response more frequently than nephrologists (66 vs. 48%, p < 0.05, Chi2), while nephrologists conversely relied significantly more on clinical symptoms (61 vs. 31%, p < 0.0001, Chi2). Non-nephrologists quantified proteinuria preferentially by 24 h urine sampling, while the majority of nephrologists relied on the urinary protein/creatinine ratio (UPCR) or the albumin/creatinine ratio of spot urine samples (59 vs. 38%, p < 0.05, Chi2). A total of 91% were concerned about persistent immunological systemic lupus erythematosus activity. There was less concern about drug adherence, renal scarring, genetic factors or other kidney diseases. Less than 20% check for drug adherence by regularly monitoring drug plasma levels. Nephrologists considered a re-biopsy more often than rheumatologists (58 vs. 38%, p < 0.05, Chi2). Together, among lupus nephritis experts there is considerable diversity in the perception of what the term ‘refractory lupus nephritis’ describes and how it is defined. A consensus definition of ‘refractory lupus nephritis’ is needed.

Non-operative management of blunt splenic injury: is it really so extensively feasible? a critical appraisal of a single-center experience

Introduction

The spleen is one of the most commonly injured organ following blunt abdominal trauma. Splenic injuries may occur in isolation or in association with other intra-and extra-abdominal injury. Nonoperative management of blunt injury to the spleen has become routine in children. In adult most minor splenic injuries are readily treated nonoperatively but controversy exists regarding the role of nonoperative management for higher grade injuries above all in multi-trauma patients. The aim of this study is the assessment of splenic trauma treatment, with particular attention to conservative treatment, its limits, its efficiency, and its safety in multi-trauma patient or in a severe trauma patient.

Methods

The present research focused on a retrospective review of patients with splenic injury. The research was performed by analyzing data of the trauma registry of St. Andrea University Hospital in Rome. The St. Andrea University Hospital trauma registry includes 1859. The variables taken into account were spleen injury and general injuries, age, sex, cause and dynamic of trauma, hemoglobin, hematocrit, white blood cells count, INR, number and time blood transfusion, hemodynamic stability, type of treatment provided, hospitalization period, morbidity and mortality. Assessment of splenic injuries was evaluated according to Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS).

Results

The analysis among the general population of spleen trauma patients identified 68 patients with a splenic injury representing the 41.2% of all abdomen injury. The Average age was of 37.01 ± 17.18 years. The Average ISS value was of 22.88 ± 12.85; mediana of 24.50 (range 4-66). The average Spleen AIS value was of 3.13 ± 0.88; mediana 3.00 (range 2-5). The overall mortality ratio was of 19.1% (13 patients). The average ISS value in patients who died was of 41.92 ± 12.48, whereas in patients who survided was of 23.33 ± 10.15. The difference was considered to be statistically significant (p <0.001). The relashionship between the ISS and AIS values in patients who died was considered directly proportional but not statistically significant (Pearson test AIS/ISS = 0.132, p = n.s.). The initial management was a conservative treatment in 27 patients (39.7%) of them 4 patients (15%) failed, in the other 41 cases urgent splenectomies were performed. The average spleen AIS in all the patients who underwent splenectomy was 3.61 ± 0.63 whereas in the patients who were not treated surgically was 2.42 ± 0.69. The difference was deemed statistically significant (p <0.001).

Conclusion

Splenic injury, as reported in our statistic as well as in literature, is the most common injury in closed abdominal trauma. Nonoperative management of blunt injury to the spleen in adults has been applied with increasing frequency. However, the criteria for nonoperative management are controversial. The preference of a conservative treatment must be based on the hemodynamic stability indices as well as on the spleen lesion severity and on the general trauma severity. The conservative treatment represent a feasible and safe therapeutic alternative even in case of severe lesions in politrauma patients, but the choice of the treatment form requires an assessment for each singular case.

Level I Trauma Centers: More Is Not Necessarily Better

The optimal number of level I trauma centers (L1TCs) in a region has not been elucidated. To begin addressing this, we compared mortalities for patients treated in counties or regions with 1 L1TC to those with >1 L1TC across Ohio. Ohio Trauma Registry data from 2010 to 2012 were analyzed. Patients with age ≥15 from counties/regions with L1TC were included. Region was defined as a L1TC containing county and its neighboring counties. Two analyses were performed. In the county analysis, counties containing 1 L1TC were compared with counties with multiple L1TCs. This comparison is repeated on a regional level for the regional analysis. Subgroup analyses were performed. 38,661 and 55,064 patients were in the county and regional analysis, respectively. Patients treated in counties or regions with multiple L1TCs were significantly younger ( P < 0.001). Despite this, the mortality was similar for the two groups in the county analysis and significantly higher for regions with multiple L1TCs ( P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that having multiple L1TC coverage in a region was an independent predictor for death (odds ratios: 1.17; 1.07-1.28; P = 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that mortality in counties and regions with multiple L1TCs was not lower in any subgroups but was higher in patients with age ≥65 and patients with blunt injuries ( P < 0.05). Having multiple L1TCs in a county was associated with increased mortality in certain patient subgroups. Having multiple L1TCs in a region was an independent predictor for death. These results should be considered carefully when designing future regionalized trauma networks. More L1TCs is not necessarily better.

A trauma network with centralized and local health care structures: Evaluating the effectiveness of the first certified Trauma Network of the German Society of Trauma Surgery

BACKGROUND

Trauma is a global burden of disease and one of the main causes of death worldwide. Therefore, many countries around the world have implemented a wide range of different initiatives to minimize mortality rates after trauma. One of these initiatives is the bundling of treatment expertise in trauma centers and the establishment of trauma networks. Germany has a decentralized system of trauma care medical centers. Severely injured patients ought to receive adequate treatment in both level I and level II centers. This study investigated the effectiveness of a decentralized network and the question whether level I and level II centers have comparable patient outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2009, the first trauma network DGU® in Germany was certified in the rural area of Eastern Bavaria. All patients admitted to the 25 participating hospitals were prospectively included in this network in the framework of a study sponsored by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research between March 2012 and February 2014. 2 hospitals were level I centers (maximal care centers), 8 hospitals were level II centers, and 15 hospitals were level III centers. The criterion for study inclusion was an injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 16 for patients´ primarily admitted to a level I or a level II center. Exclusion criteria were transferal to another hospital within 48 h, an unknown revised injury severity classification II score (RISC II), or primary admittance to a level III center (n = 52). 875 patients were included in the study. Univariate analyses were used regarding the preclinical and clinical parameters, the primary endpoint mortality rate, and the secondary endpoints length of stay, organ failure, and neurological outcome (GOS). The primary endpoint was additionally evaluated by means of multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

Indices for injury severity (GCS, AISHead, ISS, and NISS) as well as the predicted probability of death (RISC II) were higher in level I centers than in level II centers. No significant differences were found between the mortality rate of the unadjusted analysis [level I: 21.6% (CI: 16.5, 27.9), level II: 18.1% (CI: 14.4, 22.5), p = 0.28] and that of the adjusted analysis [level I SMR: 0.94 (CI: 0.72, 1.21), level II SMR: 1.18 (CI 0.95, 1.48) SMR: expected vs. calculated mortality rate according to RISC II]. Multivariable analysis showed a survival advantage of patients admitted to a level I center with a probability of death of 13% (RISC II). The number need to treat was 10 patients.

DISCUSSION

This study showed that a rural trauma network with centralized and local structures may achieve equivalent results with regard to mortality rates to those obtained in level I and level II centers. These results were furthered by a certain preclinical centralization (24/7 air rescue) of patients. The study also showed a survival advantage of patients admitted to a level I center with a probability of death of 13%. Preclinical and initial clinical evaluation with regard to probable mortality rates should be further improved to identify patients who would benefit from admittance to a level I center.

Evaluating the need to reform the organisation of care for major trauma patients in Belgium: an analysis of administrative databases

PURPOSE

In light of the international evolutions to establish inclusive trauma systems and to concentrate the care for the most severely injured in major trauma centres, we evaluated the degree of dispersion of trauma care in Belgium.

METHODS

We used descriptive statistics to illustrate the dispersion of major trauma care in Belgium based on two independent administrative databases: the registry of Mobile Intensive Care Units (2009-2015) and the Belgian Hospital Discharge Dataset (2009-2014).

RESULTS

Patients with a severe trauma (n = 3856 in 2015) were transported towards 145 different hospital sites (on a total of 198 hospital sites) resulting in a median of 17 cases per hospital site (min = 1; P25 = 4; P75 = 30; max = 165). A minority of major trauma patients is after admission transferred to another hospital (8%) with a median of 10 days after admission to the hospital (IQR 3.5-24).

CONCLUSIONS

The dispersion of care for major trauma patients in Belgium is so high that a reorganisation of care for severe injured patients in major trauma centres concentrating professional expertise and specialised equipment is recommended to guarantee a high quality of care in a qualitative and sustainable way.

Development of a German fracture register to assess current fracture care and improve treatment quality: A feasibility study

Continuous evaluation of current treatment methods is crucial in orthopaedic trauma surgery.

Existing fracture registries substantially contribute to improving fracture care and quality of life in trauma patients.

Currently there is no universal German fracture register recording the patient-centred outcome of non-surgical as well as surgical fracture treatment in all anatomical regions.

Conclusions regarding nationwide fracture treatment and quality of care are only significant to a limited extent.

Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2017;2:474–477. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.2.160086.

Severe thoracic trauma - still an independent predictor for death in multiple injured patients?

Background

Over the past, the severe thoracic trauma has had decisive influence on the outcome of multiple injured patients. Today, new therapies (e.g. extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), protective ventilation methods and new forms of patient positioning) are available and applied regularly. What impact on the patient’s outcome does the thoracic trauma have today?

Methods

Prospective data collection of multiple injured patients in a level-I trauma center was performed between 2008 and 2014. Patients with an ISS ≥16 were included and divided into 2 groups: Severe thoracic trauma (STT: AIS_Thorax ≥ 3) and mild thoracic trauma (MTT: AIS_Thorax < 3). In addition to preclinical and trauma room care, detailed information about clinical course and outcome were assessed.

Results

In total, 529 patients (STT: n = 317; MTT: n = 212) met the in- and exclusion criteria. The mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) was significantly higher in patients of the STT group (STT: 33.5 vs. MTT: 24.7; p < 0.001), while the RISC II Score showed no significant differences (STT: 20.0 vs. MTT: 17.1; p = 0.241). Preclinical data revealed a higher intubation rate, more chest tube insertions and a higher use of catecholamines in the STT group (p < 0.05). Clinically, we found significant differences in the duration of invasive ventilation (STT: 7.3d vs. MTT: 5.4d; p = 0.001) and ICU stay (STT: 12.3d vs. MTT: 9.4d; p < 0.001). While the complication rate was higher for the STT group (sepsis (STT: 11.4% vs. MTT: 5.7%; p = 0.017); lung failure (STT: 23.7% vs. MTT: 12.3%; p = 0,001)), neither the non-adjusted lethality rate (STT: 13.2% vs. MTT: 13.7%; p = 0.493) nor the Standardized Mortality Ratio (SMR) showed significant differences (STT: 0.66 vs. MTT: 0.80; p = 0.397). The multivariate regressive analysis confirmed that severe thoracic trauma is not an independent risk factor for lethality in our patient cohort.

Conclusion

Despite a higher injury severity, the extended need of emergency measures and a higher rate of complications in injured patients with severe blunt thoracic trauma, no influence on lethality can be proved. The reduction of the complication rate should be a goal for the next decades.

The "mortality ascent": Hourly risk of death for hemodynamically unstable trauma patients at Level II versus Level I trauma centers

BACKGROUND

Severely injured trauma patients have higher in-hospital mortality at Level II versus Level I trauma centers (TCs). To better understand these differences, we sought to determine if there were any periods during which hemodynamically unstable trauma patients are at higher risk of death at Level II versus Level I TCs within the first 24 hours postadmission.

STUDY DESIGN

Trauma patients aged 18 years to 64 years, with Injury Severity Score of 15 or greater, systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg at admission, and treated at Level II or Level I TCs, were identified using the 2007 to 2012 National Trauma Data Bank. Burn patients, transfers, and patients dead on arrival were excluded. Log-binomial regression models, adjusted for patient- and hospital-level confounders, were used to compare mortality at Level II versus Level I TCs over the first 24 hours postadmission.

RESULTS

Of 13,846 hemodynamically unstable patients, 4,212 (30.4%) were treated at 149 Level II TCs, and 9,634 (69.6%) at 116 Level I TCs. Within the first 24 hours, 3,059 (22.1%) patients died. In risk-adjusted models, mortality risk was significantly elevated at Level II versus Level I TCs during the 24 hours postadmission (relative risk, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.16). Hourly mortality risk was significantly different between Level II and Level I TCs during 4 hours to 7 hours postadmission, with a maximal difference at 7 hours (relative risk, 1.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.36) and comparable mortality risk beyond 7 hours postadmission.

CONCLUSION

The 4-hour to 7-hour time window postadmission is critical for hemodynamically unstable trauma patients. Variations in available treatment modalities may account for higher relative mortality at Level II TCs during this time. Further investigation to elucidate specific risk factors for mortality during this period may lead to reductions in in-hospital mortality among hemodynamically unstable trauma patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Epidemiological comparison between the Navarra Major Trauma Registry and the German Trauma Registry (TR-DGU®)

BACKGROUND

International benchmarking can help identify trauma system performance issues and determine the extent to which other countries also experience these. When problems are identified, countries can look to high performers for insight into possible responses. The objective of this study was to compare the treatment and outcome of severely injured patients in Germany and Navarra, Spain.

METHODS

Data collected, from 2010 to 2013, in the Navarra Major Trauma Registry (NMTR) and the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) were compared. Both registries followed the Utstein Trauma Template (European Core Dataset) for documentation of trauma patients. Adult patients (≥ 16 years) with New Injury Severity Score (NISS) being >15 points were included in this study. Patients who had been admitted to the hospital later than 24 h after the trauma, had been pronounced dead before hospital arrival, or had been injured by hanging, drowning or burns, were excluded. Demographic data, injury data, prehospital data, hospital treatment data, time intervals, and outcome were compared. The expected mortality was calculated using the Revised Injury Severity Classification score II (RISC II).

RESULTS

A total of 646 and 43,110 patients were included in the outcome analysis from NMTR and TR-DGU, respectively. The difference between observed and expected mortality was -0.4% (standardized mortality ratio [SMR] 0.97; 95% CI 0.93-1.04) in Germany and 1.6% (SMR 1.08; 95% CI: 1.02-1.14) in Navarra. Differences in the characteristics of trauma patients and trauma systems between the regions were noted.

CONCLUSION

The higher observed mortality in Navarra is consistent with the epidemiological characteristics of its population. However, to improve the quality of trauma care in the Navarra trauma system, certain improvements are necessary. There were less young adults with severe injuries in Navarra than in Germany. It is possible to compare data of severely injured patients from different countries if standardized registries are used.

Impact of hospital volume on mortality in patients with severe torso injury

BACKGROUND

Whether a positive volume-outcome relationship exists in the context of trauma remains controversial. Heterogeneity in the definition of hospital volume in previous studies is one of the main reasons for this inconclusiveness. We investigated whether hospital volume is associated with mortality in patients with severe torso injury using two different definitions of hospital volume.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study used the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database in Japan. Patients who were admitted to tertiary emergency centers with severe torso injury and underwent emergency surgery or interventional radiology treatment for the torso injury upon admission from April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2014 were included. Hospital volume was defined as the annual number of admissions with severe torso injury (HV-torso) or the annual number of total trauma admissions (HV-all). The main outcome was 28-d mortality. Multivariable logistic regression models fitted with generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate relationships between hospital volume and 28-d mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 7725 patients were included. The 28-d mortality rate was 15.3%. The HV-torso was significantly associated with reduced 28-d mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 0.59; 95% confidence interval = 0.44-0.79). However, there was no significant association between the HV-all and mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 1.02; 95% confidence interval = 0.72-1.46).

CONCLUSIONS

The HV-torso was significantly associated with reduced mortality in patients with severe torso injury. In contrast, the HV-all had no significant relationship with their mortality. Regionalization of trauma care for severe torso injury may be beneficial for patients with severe torso injury.

Trauma system regionalization improves mortality in patients requiring trauma laparotomy

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluates the impact of a regional trauma network (RTN) on patient survival, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, and hospital length of stay in patients who required trauma laparotomy.

METHODS

Patients who required trauma laparotomy from January 2008 to December 2013 were analyzed. Patients admitted during 2008-2009 and 2011-2013 were designated as pre-RTN and RTN groups, respectively. The primary outcome was mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 569 patients were analyzed, 231 patients were pre-RTN, and 338 were in the RTN group. Overall, mean age was 35.7 ± 17.1 and median Injury Severity Score was 16 (25th-75th percentile: 9-26). The two groups were similar with regard to age, Injury Severity Score, Abbreviated Injury Scale abdomen, sex, and mechanism. Overall, there was a 35% relative reduction in mortality from the pre-RTN to RTN group (p = 0.035), and 30% more patients were triaged to a Level 1 trauma center in the RTN group (p < 0.001). Logistic regression showed that being in the RTN group was an independent predictor for survival (p = 0.026) with odds ratio of 0.53 (95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.93). Patients with penetrating trauma had a nonsignificant decrease in mortality and a reduction of 1 day of ICU stay (p = 0.001). Patients with blunt trauma had a significant reduction in mortality from 38% in the pre-RTN group to 23% in the RTN group (p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

This study focused on the unique patient population that required trauma laparotomies. It showed that trauma system regionalization led to a significant increase in the number of patients triaged to a Level 1 trauma center and reduction of ICU length of stay. More importantly, it demonstrated the benefit of regionalization by showing a significant reduction of hospital mortality in this critically injured patient population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV.

Despite Trauma Center Closures, Trauma System Regionalization Reduces Mortality and Time to Definitive Care in Severely Injured Patients

The Northern Ohio Trauma System (NOTS), consisting of multiple hospital systems, was established in 2010 to improve trauma outcomes. This study assessed its impact on mortality and time to definitive care, focusing especially on the severely injured patients. NOTS trauma registry was queried for all trauma activations from 2008 to 2013. The years between 2008–2009 and 2011–2013 were designated as pre- and post-NOTS, respectively. Data from 2010 was excluded as a transitional year. Two trauma centers (TCs) closed in 2010. Predetermined patient subgroups were analyzed. A total of 27,843 patients were examined. Mean age was 46 and 64 per cent were male. Median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was five, and 87 per cent sustained blunt injuries. Of these, 10,641 patients were pre-NOTS and 17,202 were post-NOTS. Comparing the two groups, mortality decreased from 5 to 4 per cent post-NOTS (P < 0.001); median time to definitive care increased by 12 minutes post-NOTS. Multivariate logistic regression showed that NOTS implementation was an independent predictor for survival (P = 0.008), whereas time to definitive care was not. Subgroup analyses demonstrated mortality reductions post-NOTS for all subgroups except patients with penetrating injuries, where mortality remained the same despite an increase in ISS. Patients with ISS ≥15 had a 23 per cent relative reduction in mortality, and their median time to definitive care decreased by 12 minutes. Implementation of a collaborative, regional trauma system was associated with mortality reduction and shortened time to definitive care in the severely injured patients. These findings highlight the importance of collaboration in the future development of regional trauma systems.

[Registries of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma : Overview and perspectives of the DGU and DGOOC registries]

The register network of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU) consists of 14 registries that cover the various fields of traumatology and elective orthopedics. In addition to registries that focus on implants and types of diseases without age limitations, there are also registries dealing with special diseases in children and adolescents as well as the special needs of elderly patients with fractures. The registries serve as instruments for outcome research and quality assurance and can be used to develop treatment recommendations on a high level of evidence. The objective of the network is to exchange experience that facilitates the establishment of new registers, to pool expertise and to conserve resources.

Effect of private versus emergency medical systems transportation in trauma patients in a mostly physician based system- a retrospective multicenter study based on the TraumaRegister DGU®

Background

The effects of private transportation (PT) to definitive trauma care in comparison to transportation using Emergency Medical Services (EMS) have so far been addressed by a few studies, with some of them finding a beneficial effect on survival. The aim of the current study was to investigate epidemiology, pre- and in-hospital times as well as outcomes in patients after PT as compared to EMS recorded in the TraumaRegister DGU®.

Methods

All patients in the database of the TraumaRegister DGU® (TR-DGU) from participating European trauma centers treated in 2009 to 2013 with available data on the mode of transportation, ISS ≥ 4 and ICU treatment were included in the study. Epidemiological data, pre- and in-hospital times were analysed. Outcomes were analysed after adjustment for RISC-II scores.

Results

76,512 patients were included in the study, of which 1,085 (1.4 %) were private transports. Distribution of ages and trauma mechanisms showed a markedly different pattern following PT, with more children < 15 years treated following PT (3.3 % EMS vs. 9.6 for PT) and more elderly patients of 65 years or older (26.6 vs 32.4 %). Private transportation to trauma care was by far more frequent in Level 2 and 3 hospitals (41.2 % in EMS group vs 73.7 %). Median pre-hospital times were also reduced following PT (59 min for EMS vs. 46 for PT). In-hospital time in the trauma room (66 for EMS vs. 103 min for PT) and time to diagnostics were prolonged following PT. Outcome analysis after adjustment for RISC-II scores showed a survival benefit of PT over EMS transport (SMR for EMS 1.07 95 % CI 1.05–1.09; for PT 0.85 95 % CI 0.62–1.08).

Discussion

The current study shows a distinct pattern concerning epidemiology and mechanism of injury following PT. PT accelerates the median pre-hospital times, but prolongs time to diagnostic measures and time in the trauma room.

Conclusions

In this distinct collective, PT seemed to lead to a small benefit in terms of mortality, which may reflect pre-hospital times, pre-hospital interventions or other confounders.