[Effectiveness of management of children with severe trauma in a pediatric trauma center and in an adult trauma center: A before-after study]

Pediatric vs Adult or Mixed Trauma Centers in Children Admitted to Hospitals Following Trauma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Adult trauma centers (ATCs) have been shown to decrease injury mortality and morbidity in major trauma, but a synthesis of evidence for pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) is lacking.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of PTCs compared with ATCs, combined trauma centers (CTCs), or nondesignated hospitals in reducing mortality and morbidity among children admitted to hospitals following trauma.

Data Sources

MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science through March 2023.

Study Selection

Studies comparing PTCs with ATCs, CTCs, or nondesignated hospitals for pediatric trauma populations (aged ≤19 years).

Data Extraction and Synthesis

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions tool. A meta-analysis was conducted if more than 2 studies evaluated the same intervention-comparator-outcome and controlled minimally for age and injury severity. Subgroup analyses were planned for age, injury type and severity, trauma center designation level and verification body, country, and year of conduct. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess certainty of evidence.

Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)

Primary outcomes were mortality, complications, functional status, discharge destination, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resource use and processes of care, including computed tomography (CT) and operative management of blunt solid organ injury (SOI).

Results

A total of 56 studies with 286 051 participants were included overall, and 34 were included in the meta-analysis. When compared with ATCs, PTCs were associated with a 41% lower risk of mortality (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.76), a 52% lower risk of CT use (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.26-0.89) and a 64% lower risk of operative management for blunt SOI (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.23-0.57). The OR for complications was 0.80 (95% CI, 0.41-1.56). There was no association for mortality for older children (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.06), and the association was closer to the null when PTCs were compared with CTCs (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99). Results remained similar for other subgroup analyses. GRADE certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, results suggested that PTCs were associated with lower odds of mortality, CT use, and operative management for SOI than ATCs for children admitted to hospitals following trauma, but certainty of evidence was very low. Future studies should strive to address selection and confounding biases.

Disaster preparedness in French paediatric hospitals 2 years after terrorist attacks of 2015

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine paediatric hospital preparedness for a mass casualty disaster involving children in both prehospital and hospital settings. The study findings will serve to generate recommendations, guidelines and training objectives.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The AMAVI-PED study is a cross-sectional survey. An electronic questionnaire was sent to French physicians with key roles in specialised paediatric acute care.

RESULTS

In total, 81% (26 of 32) of French University Hospitals were represented in the study. A disaster plan AMAVI with a specific paediatric emphasis was established in all the paediatric centres. In case of a mass casualty event, paediatric victims would be initially admitted to the paediatric emergency department for most centres (n=21; 75%). Paediatric anaesthesiologists, paediatric surgeons and paediatric radiologists were in-house in 20 (71%), 5 (18%) and 12 (43%) centres, respectively. Twenty-three (82%) hospitals had a paediatric specialised mobile intensive care unit and seven (25%) of these could provide a prehospital emergency response. Didactic teaching and simulation exercises were implemented in 20 (71%) and 22 (79%) centres, respectively. Overall, physician participants rated the level of readiness of their hospital as 6 (IQR: 5-7) on a 10-point readiness scale.

CONCLUSION

Paediatric preparedness is very heterogeneous between the centres. Based on the study findings, we suggest that a national programme must be defined and guidelines generated.