Resource use and clinical outcomes in blunt thoracic injury: a 10-year trauma registry comparison between southern Finland and Germany

Prehospital Trauma Compendium: Traumatic Pneumothorax Care - a position statement and resource document of NAEMSP

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) clinicians manage patients with traumatic pneumothoraces. These may be simple pneumothoraces that are less clinically impactful, or tension pneumothoraces that disturb perfusion, lead to shock, and impart significant risk for morbidity and mortality. Needle thoracostomy is the most common EMS treatment of tension pneumothorax, but despite the potentially life-saving value of needle thoracostomy, reports indicate frequent misapplication of the procedure as well as low rates of successful decompression. This has led some to question the value of prehospital needle thoracostomy and has prompted consideration of alternative approaches to management (e.g., simple thoracostomy, tube thoracostomy). EMS clinicians must determine when pleural decompression is indicated and optimize the safety and effectiveness of the procedure. Further, there is also ambiguity regarding EMS management of open pneumothoraces. To provide evidence-based guidance on the management of traumatic pneumothoraces in the EMS setting, NAEMSP performed a structured literature review and developed the following recommendations supported by the evidence summarized in the accompanying resource document.NAEMSP recommends:EMS identification of a tension pneumothorax must be guided by a combination of risk factors and physical findings, which may be augmented by diagnostic technologies.EMS clinicians should recognize the differences in the clinical presentation of a tension pneumothorax in spontaneously breathing patients and in patients receiving positive pressure ventilation.EMS clinicians should not perform pleural decompression in patients with simple pneumothoraces but should perform pleural decompression in patients with tension pneumothorax, if within the clinician's scope of practice.When within scope of practice, EMS clinicians should use needle thoracostomy as the primary strategy for pleural decompression of tension pneumothorax in most cases. EMS clinicians should take a patient-individualized approach to performing needle thoracostomy, influenced by factors known to impact chest wall thickness and risk for iatrogenic injury.Simple thoracostomy and tube thoracostomy may be used by highly trained EMS clinicians in select clinical settings with appropriate medical oversight and quality assurance.EMS systems must investigate and adopt strategies to confirm successful pleural decompression at the time thoracostomy is performed.Pleural decompression should be performed for patients with traumatic out-of-hospital circulatory arrest (TOHCA) if there are clinical signs of tension pneumothorax or suspicion thereof due to significant thoraco-abdominal trauma. Empiric bilateral decompression, however, is not routinely indicated in the absence of such findings.EMS clinicians should not routinely perform pleural decompression of suspected or confirmed simple pneumothorax prior to air-medical transport in most situations.EMS clinicians may consider placement of a vented chest seal in spontaneously breathing patients with open pneumothoraces.In patients receiving positive pressure ventilation who have open pneumothoraces, chest seals may be harmful and are not recommended.EMS physicians play an important role in developing curricula and leading quality management programs to both ensure that EMS clinicians are properly trained in the recognition and management of tension pneumothorax and to ensure that interventions for tension pneumothorax are performed appropriately, safely, and effectively.

An ultrasound-guided serratus anterior plane block with continuous local anaesthetic infusion and epidural analgesia for rib fracture pain

BACKGROUND

We compared analgesia with an ultrasound (US)-guided serratus anterior plane block (SAPB) to thoracic epidural analgesia (EA) with continuous local anaesthetic infusion in patients with unilateral multiple traumatic rib fractures. EA often carries contraindications in patients with multiple rib fractures (MRFs), whereby having alternative effective methods to treat rib fracture pain remains important to patient care. Thus, we hypothesised that both regional anaesthetic techniques would provide effective pain relief.

METHODS

In this study, we included 59 patients with unilateral MRFs and a numerical rating scale (NRS) pain score ≥4 at rest or upon movement. Patients were randomised to receive a US-guided SAPB or continuous infusion EA with 2 mg/mL ropivacaine. Patients were given a patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) device with intravenous oxycodone boluses for rescue medication. The primary outcome was a change in the NRS score at rest and upon movement from baseline to Day 2 following the block. We also measured the forced expiratory volume in 1 s of expiration (FEV1) and FEV1% at the same time points when NRS was measured. The total consumption of oxycodone with PCA was measured at 24 and 48 h after the block.

RESULTS

We detected a significant reduction (≥2) in NRS for both groups; however, EA associated with a greater reduction in NRS upon movement after block initiation. The mean reduction in NRS upon movement within 1 h was 3 (1.8, p < .01) in the SAPB group versus 4.7 (2.4, p < .01) in the EA group. We found no significant difference between groups in pain scores on Days 1 and 2 following the block. In the EA group, FEV1% increase in the first 12 h from baseline. Finally, PCA oxycodone consumption did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

SAPB with continuous local anaesthetic infusion is an effective alternative to treat rib fracture pain when EA is contraindicated. We found that SABP significantly reduces pain in patients with unilateral MRFs, although EA achieves better analgesia over the first 12 h following the block.

Comorbidities, injury severity and complications predict mortality in thoracic trauma

Purpose

Thoracic trauma accounts for 25–50% of posttraumatic mortality. Data on epidemiology of thoracic trauma in Scandinavia and risk factors for mortality are scarce. This study aims to provide an overview of epidemiology, clinical events and risk factors for mortality of patients with severe thoracic injuries.

Methods

A retrospective study including adult thoracic trauma patients with abbreviated injury scale ≥ 3, between 2009 and 2018 at Haukeland University Hospital was performed. Subgroup analyses were performed for specific patient groups: (1) isolated thoracic trauma, (2) polytrauma without Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and (3) polytrauma with TBI. Logistic regression analyses were applied to find risk factors for 30-days mortality. Age, sex, comorbidity polypharmacy score (CPS), trauma and injury severity score (TRISS) and comprehensive complication index (CI) were included in the final model.

Results

Data of 514 patients were analyzed, of which 60 (12%) patients died. Median (IQR) injury severity score (ISS) was 17 (13–27). Data of 463 patients, of which 39 patients died (8%), were included in multivariate analyses. Female sex odds ratio (OR) (2.7, p = 0.04), CPS > 9 (OR 4.8; p = 0.01), TRISS ≤ 50% (OR 44; p < 0.001) and CI ≥ 30 (OR 12.5, p < 0.001) were significant risk factors for mortality. Subgroup analyses did not demonstrate other risk factors.

Conclusion

Comorbidities and associated pharmacotherapies, TRISS, female sex, and complications during admission predict in-hospital mortality after thoracic trauma. Current findings might help to recognize patients at risk of an adverse outcome, and thereby prevent complications.

Trial registration: retrospectively registered

The regional committees for medical and health research ethics file number is 2017/293.

Trauma-registry survival outcome follow up: 30 days is mandatory and appears sufficient

INTRODUCTION

Thirty-day in-hospital mortality is a common outcome measure in trauma-registry research and benchmarking. However, this does not include deaths after hospital discharge before 30 days or late deaths beyond 30 days since the injury. To evaluate the reliability of this outcome measure, we assessed the timing and causes of death during the first year after major blunt trauma in patients treated at a single tertiary trauma center.

METHODS

We used the Helsinki Trauma Registry to identify severely injured (NISS ≥ 16) blunt trauma patients during 2006 to 2015. The Population Register center of Finland provided the mortality data for patients and Statistics Finland provided the cause of death information from death certificates. Disease, work-related disease, medical treatment, and unknown cause of death were considered as non-trauma related deaths. We divided the 1-year study period into the following three categories: in-hospital death before 30 days (Group 1), death after discharge but within 30 days (Group 2), and death 31 to 365 days since admission (Group 3).

RESULTS

We included 3557 patients with a median NISS of 29. Altogether, 21.8% (776/3557) patients died during the first year since the injury. Of these non-survivors, 12.7% (450) were in Group 1, 4.0% (141) in Group 2, and 5.2% (185) in Group 3. Non-traumatic deaths not directly related to the injury increased substantially as the time from the injury increased and were 2.0% (9/450) in Group 1, 13.5% (19/141) in Group 2, and 35.7% (66/185) in Group 3.

CONCLUSION

Thirty-day mortality is a proper outcome that measures survival after severe blunt trauma. However, applying only in-hospital mortality instead of actual 30-day mortality may exclude non-survivors who die at another facility before day 30. This could result in over-optimistic benchmarking results. On the other hand, extending the follow-up period beyond 30 days increases the rate of non-traumatic deaths. By combining data from different registries, it is possible to address this challenge in current trauma-registry research caused by lack of follow up.

Severe traffic injuries in the Helsinki Trauma Registry between 2009-2018

OBJECTIVE

The European Union (EU) has adopted the Vision Zero and Safe System approach to eliminate deaths and serious traffic injuries on European roads by 2050. Detailed information on serious injuries, injury mechanisms and consequences are needed. The aim of this study was to describe and compare by injury mechanism the demographics, injuries, injury severity, and treatment of seriously injured road traffic trauma patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We analysed data on severe traffic injury trauma patients aged ≥16 years of the Helsinki Trauma Registry (HTR) covering the years 2009-2018. The variables analysed were basic patient demographics, injury mechanism, Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codes, injured body regions, patient Injury Severity Score (ISS) and New Injury Severity Score (NISS) values, NISS groups (NISS 16-24 and NISS ≥25), AIS 3+ injuries, trauma bay and 30-day mortality, length of stay (LOS) at ICU and in hospital, surgeries performed, pre-injury classification, and intention of injury.

RESULTS

A total of 1 063 traffic injury patients were analysed; 38.6% were motor vehicle occupants, 28.5% motorcyclists or moped drivers, 17.2% bicyclists, and 15.7% pedestrians. The mean age of patients was 44.3 years (SD 20.2). Median ISS score was 22 and median NISS score was 27. Both scores were highest in pedestrians. Among all patients, total hospital LOS was 12 517 days (median 9) and total ICU LOS was 6 311 days (median 5). The most common AIS 3+ injuries according to ISS body regions were chest injuries (60%) and head or neck injuries (43.7%). Chest injuries occurred more frequently in motorcyclists and motor vehicle occupants, whereas head or neck injuries were most common among bicyclists and pedestrians.

CONCLUSIONS

Severely injured pedestrians and bicyclists were older and they had higher mortality than motorcyclists and motor vehicle occupants. According to NISS, the overall severity was highest among pedestrians followed by bicyclists. However, the both median ICU LOS and hospital LOS were highest for pedestrians but lowest for bicyclists. The most common AIS 3+ injuries were chest and head or neck injuries. To specify effective injury prevention measures, hospital data should be complemented with information on the circumstances of the accident.

How to Validate Data Quality in a Trauma Registry? The Helsinki Trauma Registry Internal Audit

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Trauma registry data are used for analyzing and improving patient care, comparison of different units, and for research and administrative purposes. Data should therefore be reliable. The aim of this study was to audit the quality of the Helsinki Trauma Registry internally. We describe how to conduct a validation of a regional or national trauma registry and how to report the results in a readily comprehensible form.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Trauma registry database of Helsinki Trauma Registry from year 2013 was re-evaluated. We assessed data quality in three different parts of the data input process: the process of including patients in the trauma registry (case completeness); the process of calculating Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) codes; and entering the patient variables in the trauma registry (data completeness, accuracy, and correctness). We calculated the case completeness results using raw agreement percentage and Cohen's κ value. Percentage and descriptive methods were used for the remaining calculations.

RESULTS

In total, 862 patients were evaluated; 853 were rated the same in the audit process resulting in a raw agreement percentage of 99%. Nine cases were missing from the registry, yielding a case completeness of 97.1% for the Helsinki Trauma Registry. For AIS code data, we analyzed 107 patients with severe thorax injury with 941 AIS codes. Completeness of codes was 99.0% (932/941), accuracy was 90.0% (841/932), and correctness was 97.5% (909/932). The data completeness of patient variables was 93.4% (3899/4174). Data completeness was 100% for 16 of 32 categories. Data accuracy was 94.6% (3690/3899) and data correctness was 97.2% (3789/3899).

CONCLUSION

The case completeness, data completeness, data accuracy, and data correctness of the Helsinki Trauma Registry are excellent. We recommend that these should be the variables included in a trauma registry validation process, and that the quality of trauma registry data should be systematically and regularly reviewed and reported.