Comparative Effectiveness of Initial Treatment at Trauma Center vs Neurosurgery-Capable Non-Trauma Center for Severe, Isolated Head Injury

Geography of the Underserved: The Contribution of Rural Non-trauma Hospitals to Trauma Care

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion and characteristics of injured rural residents treated at urban trauma centers (TCs), urban non-trauma centers (NTCs), rural TCs, and rural NTCs.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Timely treatment at a designated TC improves outcomes for patients with serious injuries, but rural residents have limited access to designated TCs. Rural NTCs may constitute an under-recognized source of TC.

METHODS

We used the National Emergency Department Sample to conduct a retrospective, pooled cross-sectional study of ED visits among rural residents with injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 9 (indicating at least moderate injury). Hospitals were designated as TC or NTC and as rural or urban. We compared management, disposition, and outcomes among hospital types.

RESULTS

Of 748,587 injured rural residents from 2016 to 2020, 384,113 (51.3%) were treated in rural NTCs, 232,845 (31.1%) in urban TCs, 116,493 (15.6%) in urban NTCs, and 15,137 (2.0%) in rural TCs. Injuries treated at rural NTCs were moderate in severity (ISS: 9-15) in 76.6% of visits, severe (ISS: 16-25) in 15.7%, and very severe (ISS: >25) in 1.1%. Urban TCs saw the highest proportion of very severe injuries (17.3%). Rural NTCs managed 77.5% of visits definitively, discharging 72.8%. They transferred 21.9% of patients. The length of stay was the longest, and hospital charges were highest for patients treated in urban TCs, which also performed the most procedures. Rural NTCs had the shortest length of stay and lowest mean charges.

CONCLUSIONS

Rural NTCs provided initial care for more than half of injured rural residents, including 2 in 5 of those with the most severe injuries, and managed more than 3 in 4 definitively. These hospitals may be an under-recognized component of the US trauma system.

Implementation of the Modified Brain Injury Guidelines Might Be Feasible and Cost-Effective Even in a Nontrauma Hospital

INTRODUCTION

The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) provide a framework to stratify traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients based on clinical and radiographic factors in level 1 and 2 trauma centers. Approximately 75% of all U.S. hospitals do not carry any trauma designation yet could also benefit from these guidelines. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of applying the mBIG protocol in a community hospital without any trauma designation.

METHODS

All adult patients with a TBI in a single center from 2020 to 2022 were retrospectively classified into mBIG categories. The primary outcomes included neurological deterioration, progression on computed tomography of the head, and surgical intervention. Additional outcomes included the hospital costs incurred by the mBIG 1 and mBIG 2 groups.

RESULTS

Of the 116 included patients, 35 (30%) would have stratified into mBIG 1, 23 (20%) into mBIG 2, and 58 (50%) into mBIG 3. No patient in mBIG 1 had a decline in neurological examination findings or progression on computed tomography of the head or required neurosurgical intervention. Three patients in mBIG 2 had radiographic progression and one required surgical decompression. Two patients in mBIG 3 demonstrated a neurological decline and six had radiographic progression. Of the 21 patients who received surgical intervention, 20 were stratified into mBIG 3. Implementation of the mBIG protocol could have reduced costs by >$250,000 during the 2-year period.

CONCLUSIONS

The mBIG protocol can safely stratify patients in a nontrauma hospital. Because nontrauma centers tend to see more patients with minor TBIs, implementation could result in significant cost savings, reduce unnecessary hospital and intensive care unit resources, and reduce transfers to a tertiary institution.

Evaluating associations between level of trauma care and outcomes of patients with specific severe injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Trauma networks have multiple designated levels of trauma care. This classification parallels concentration of major trauma care, creating innovations and improving outcome measures.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess associations of level of trauma care with patient outcomes for populations with specific severe injuries.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using six electronic databases up to April 19, 2022 (PROSPERO CRD42022327576). Studies comparing fatal, nonfatal clinical, or functional outcomes across different levels of trauma care for trauma populations with specific severe injuries or injured body region (Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥3) were included. Two independent reviewers included studies, extracted data, and assessed quality. Unadjusted and adjusted pooled effect sizes were calculated with random-effects meta-analysis comparing Level I and Level II trauma centers.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies (1,100,888 patients) were included, of which 25 studies (n = 443,095) used for meta-analysis, suggesting a survival benefit for the severely injured admitted to a Level I trauma center compared with a Level II trauma center (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.25). Adjusted subgroup analysis on in-hospital mortality was done for patients with traumatic brain injuries (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.50) and hemodynamically unstable patients (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.98-1.22). Hospital and intensive care unit length of stay resulted in an unadjusted mean difference of -1.63 (95% CI, -2.89 to -0.36) and -0.21 (95% CI, -1.04 to 0.61), respectively, discharged home resulted in an unadjusted OR of 0.92 (95% CI, 0.78-1.09).

CONCLUSION

Severely injured patients admitted to a Level I trauma center have a survival benefit. Nonfatal outcomes were indicative for a longer stay, more intensive care, and more frequently posthospital recovery trajectories after being admitted to top levels of trauma care. Trauma networks with designated levels of trauma care are beneficial to the multidisciplinary character of trauma care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level III.

Comparison of survival outcomes among older adults with major trauma after trauma center versus non-trauma center care in the United States

OBJECTIVE

To compare level 1 and 2 trauma centers with similarly sized non-trauma centers on survival after major trauma among older adults.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

We used claims of 100% of 2012-2017 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who received hospital care after major trauma.

STUDY DESIGN

Survival differences were estimated after applying propensity-score-based overlap weights. Subgroup analyses were performed for ambulance-transported patients and by external cause. We assessed the roles of prehospital care, hospital quality, and volume.

DATA COLLECTION

Data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Thirty-day mortality was higher overall at level 1 versus non-trauma centers by 2.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8, 2.6) percentage points (pp). Thirty-day mortality was higher at level 1 versus non-trauma centers by 2.3 (95% CI: 1.9, 2.8) pp for falls and 2.3 (95% CI: 0.2, 4.4) pp for motor vehicle crashes. Differences persisted at 1 year. Level 1 and 2 trauma centers had similar outcomes. Hospital quality and volume did not explain these differences. In the ambulance-transported subgroup, after adjusting for prehospital variables, no statistically significant differences remained.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma centers may not provide longer survival than similarly sized non-trauma hospitals for severely injured older adults.

Comparison of Outcomes at Trauma Centers versus Non-Trauma Centers for Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

OBJECTIVE

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is one of the most common injuries in patients with multiple trauma, and it associates with high post-traumatic mortality and morbidity. A trauma center was established to provide optimal treatment for patients with severe trauma. This study aimed to compare the treatment outcomes of patients with severe TBI between non-trauma and trauma centers based on data from the Korean Neuro-Trauma Data Bank System (KNTDBS).

METHODS

From January 2018 to June 2021, 1122 patients were enrolled in the KNTDBS study. Among them, 253 patients from non-traumatic centers and 253 from trauma centers were matched using propensity score analysis. We evaluated baseline characteristics, the time required from injury to hospital arrival, surgery-related factors, neuromonitoring, and outcomes.

RESULTS

The time from injury to hospital arrival was shorter in the non-trauma centers (110.2 vs. 176.1 minutes, p=0.012). The operation time was shorter in the trauma centers (156.7 vs. 128.1 minutes, p0.003). Neuromonitoring was performed in nine patients (3.6%) in the non-trauma centers and 67 patients (26.5%) in the trauma centers (p<0.001). Mortality rates were lower in trauma centers than in non-trauma centers (58.5% vs. 47.0%, p=0.014). The average Glasgow coma scale (GCS) at discharge was higher in the trauma centers (4.3 vs. 5.7, p=0.011). For the Glasgow outcome scale-extended (GOSE) at discharge, the favorable outcome (GOSE 5-8) was 17.4% in the non-trauma centers and 27.3% in the trauma centers (p=0.014).

CONCLUSION

This study showed lower mortality rates, higher GCS scores at discharge, and higher rates of favorable outcomes in trauma centers than in non-trauma centers. The regional trauma medical system seems to have a positive impact in treating patients with severe TBI.

Treatment effects of monosialotetrahexosylganglioside on severe traumatic brain injury in adults

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of monosialotetrahexosylganglioside (GM-1) on the curative effect on severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) in adults and assess the changes of serum inflammatory factors.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was used in this study. A total of 130 adult patients with severe TBI treated in our hospital from April 2019 to July 2021 were enrolled. Among them, 63 patients treated with conventional therapy were grouped as the control group (Con group), and 67 patients given GM-1 based on conventional therapy were grouped as the observation group (Obs group). The therapeutic efficacy and incidence of adverse reactions were compared between the two groups. The Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Glasgow coma scale (GCS), serum neuron specific enolase (NSE), and Barthel index were adopted for evaluating the two groups after treatment, and the two groups were compared in inflammatory response and stress response.

RESULTS

After treatment, the Obs group showed a significantly higher total effective rate and a significantly lower total incidence of complications than the Con group (P<0.05), and also had significantly higher MMSE score, GCS score and Barthel index than the Con group (P<0.05). After treatment, the NSE level in the Obs group was significantly lower than that in the Con group. Additionally, after treatment, the Obs group showed significantly lower levels of IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-α, a significantly higher SOD level, and a significantly lower MDA level than the Con group (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

For patients with severe TBI, adjuvant therapy with GM-1 can significantly raise the therapeutic effect and improve the nerve function and inflammatory reaction, which is worthy of clinical application.

What are the demographic and clinical differences between those older adults with traumatic brain injury who receive a neurosurgical intervention to those that do not? A systematic literature review with narrative synthesis

OBJECTIVES

This review aimed to identify the demographic and clinical differences between those older adults admitted directly under neurosurgical care and those that were not, and whether EMS clinicians could use these differences to improve patient triage.

METHODS

The authors searched for papers that included older adults who had suffered a TBI and were either admitted directly under neurosurgical care or were not. Titles and abstracts were screened, shortlisting potentially eligible papers before performing a full-text review. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were eligible for inclusion. A high abbreviated injury score head, Marshall score or subdural hematoma greater than 10 mm were associated with neurosurgical care. There were few differences between those patients who did and did not receive neurosurgical intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Absence of guidelines and clinician bias means that differences between those treated aggressively and conservatively observed in the literature are fraught with bias. Further work is required to understand which patients would benefit from an escalation of care and whether EMS can identify these patients so they are transported directly to a hospital with the appropriate services on-site.

Hospitals with and without neurosurgery: a comparative study evaluating the outcome of patients with traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

We leveraged the data of the international CREACTIVE consortium to investigate whether the outcome of traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) in hospitals without on-site neurosurgical capabilities (no-NSH) would differ had the same patients been admitted to ICUs in hospitals with neurosurgical capabilities (NSH).

METHODS

The CREACTIVE observational study enrolled more than 8000 patients from 83 ICUs. Adult TBI patients admitted to no-NSH ICUs within 48 h of trauma were propensity-score matched 1:3 with patients admitted to NSH ICUs. The primary outcome was the 6-month extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS-E), while secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 232 patients, less than 5% of the eligible cohort, were admitted to no-NSH ICUs. Each of them was matched to 3 NSH patients, leading to a study sample of 928 TBI patients where the no-NSH and NSH groups were well-balanced with respect to all of the variables included into the propensity score. Patients admitted to no-NSH ICUs experienced significantly higher ICU and in-hospital mortality. Compared to the matched NSH ICU admissions, their 6-month GOS-E scores showed a significantly higher prevalence of upper good recovery for cases with mild TBI and low expected mortality risk at admission, along with a progressively higher incidence of poor outcomes with increased TBI severity and mortality risk.

CONCLUSIONS

In our study, centralization of TBI patients significantly impacted short- and long-term outcomes. For TBI patients admitted to no-NSH centers, our results suggest that the least critically ill can effectively be managed in centers without neurosurgical capabilities. Conversely, the most complex patients would benefit from being treated in high-volume, neuro-oriented ICUs.

The Short and the Long of it: Timing of Mortality for Older Adults in a State Trauma System

BACKGROUND

The impact of injury extends beyond the hospital stay, but trauma center performance metrics typically focus on in-hospital mortality. We compared risk adjusted rates of in-hospital and long-term mortality among Pennsylvania trauma centers. We hypothesized that centers with low rates of in-hospital mortality would also have low rates of long-term mortality.

METHODS

We identified injured patients (age ≥ 65) admitted to Pennsylvania trauma centers in 2013 and 2014 using the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study, a robust, state-wide trauma registry. We matched trauma registry records to Medicare claims from the y 2013 to 2015. Matching variables included admission date and patient demographics including date of birth, zip, sex, and race and/or ethnicity. Outcomes examined were inpatient, 30-day, and 1-y mortality. Multivariable logistic regression models including presenting physiology, comorbidities, injury characteristics, and demographics were developed to calculate expected mortality rates for each trauma center at each time point. Trauma center performance was assessed using observed-to-expected ratios and ranking for in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-y mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 15,451 patients treated at 28 centers, 8.1% died before discharge or were discharged to hospice. Another 3.4% died within 30 d, and another 14.7% died within 1 y of injury. Of patients who survived hospitalization but died within 30 d, 92.5% were injured due to fall, and 75.0% sustained head injuries. Survival at 1 y was higher in patients discharged home (88.4%), compared to those discharged to a skilled nursing facility or long-term acute care hospital (72.7% and 52.6%, respectively). Three centers were identified as outliers (two low and one high) for in-hospital mortality, none of which were outliers when the horizon was stretched to 30 d from injury. At 30 d, two different low and two different high outliers were found.

CONCLUSION

Nearly one-in-three injured older adults who die within 30 d of injury dies after hospital discharge. Hospital rankings for in-hospital mortality correlate poorly with long-term outcomes. These findings underscore the importance of looking beyond survival to discharge for quality improvement and benchmarking.

Impact of US hospital center and interhospital transfer on spinal cord injury management: An analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank

BACKGROUND

Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is a serious public health problem. Outcomes are determined by severity of immediate injury, mitigation of secondary downstream effects, and rehabilitation. This study aimed to understand how the center type a patient presents to and whether they are transferred influence management and outcome.

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank was used to identify patients with SCI. The primary objective was to determine association between center type, transfer, and surgical intervention. A secondary objective was to determine association between center type, transfer, and surgical timing. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit on surgical intervention and timing of the surgery as binary variables, adjusting for relevant clinical and demographic variables.

RESULTS

There were 11,744 incidents of SCI identified. A total of 2,883 patients were transferred to a Level I center and 4,766 presented directly to a level I center. Level I center refers to level I trauma center. Those who were admitted directly to level I centers had a higher odd of receiving a surgery (odds ratio, 1.703; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.97; p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in terms of timing of surgery. Patients transferred into a level I center were also more likely to undergo surgery than those at a level II/III/IV center, although this was not significant (odds ratio, 1.213; 95% confidence interval, 0.099-1.48; p = 0.059).

CONCLUSION

Patients with traumatic SCI admitted to level I trauma centers were more likely to have surgery, particularly if they were directly admitted to a level I center. This study provides insights into a large US sample and sheds light on opportunities for improving pre hospital care pathways for patients with traumatic SCI, to provide the timely and appropriate care and achieve the best possible outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Care management, Level IV.

Heterogeneity in managing rib fractures across non-trauma and level I, II, and III trauma centers

BACKGROUND

We aimed to elucidate management patterns and outcomes of high-risk patients with rib fractures (elderly or flail chest) across non-trauma and trauma centers. We hypothesized highest-capacity (level I) centers would have best outcomes for high-risk patients.

METHODS

We queried the 2016 National Emergency Department Sample to identify adults presenting with rib fractures. Multivariable regression assessed ED and inpatient events across non-trauma and level III/II/I trauma centers.

RESULTS

Among 504,085 rib fracture encounters, 46% presented to non-trauma centers. Elderly patients with multiple rib fractures had stepwise increase in inpatient admission odds and stepwise decrease in pneumonia odds at higher-capacity trauma centers compared to non-trauma centers. Among patients with flail chest, odds of undergoing surgical stabilization (SSRF) increased at trauma centers. Undergoing SSRF was associated with reduced mortality but remained underutilized.

CONCLUSION

Half of patients with rib fractures present to non-trauma centers. Nationwide care-optimization for high-risk patients requires further effort.

Comparing the outcomes of isolated, serious traumatic brain injury in older adults managed at major trauma centres and neurosurgical services: A registry-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

The incidence of older adult traumatic brain injury (TBI) is increasing in both high and middle to low-income countries. It is unknown whether older adults with isolated, serious TBI can be safely managed outside of major trauma centres. This registry based cohort study aimed to compare mortality and functional outcomes of older adults with isolated, serious TBI who were managed at specialised Major Trauma Services (MTS) and Metropolitan Neurosurgical Services (MNS).

METHOD

Older adults (65 years and over) who sustained an isolated, serious TBI following a low fall (from standing or ≤ 1 m) were extracted from the Victorian State Trauma Registry from 2007 to 2016. Multivariable models were fitted to assess the association between hospital designation (MTS vs. MNS) and the two outcomes of interest: in-hospital mortality and functional outcome, adjusting for potential confounders. Functional outcomes were measured using the Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended at six months post-injury.

RESULTS

From 2007-2016, there were 1904 older adults who sustained an isolated, serious TBI from a low fall who received definitive care at an MTS (n = 1124) or an MNS (n = 780). After adjusting for confounders, there was no mortality benefit for patients managed at an MTS over an MNS (OR = 0.84; 95% CI: 0.65, 1.08; P = 0.17) or improvement in functional outcome six months post-injury (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 0.94, 1.36; P = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

For older adults with isolated, serious TBI following a low fall, there was no difference in mortality or functional outcome based on definitive management at an MTS or an MNS. This confirms that MNS without the added designation of a major trauma centre are a suitable destination for the management of isolated, serious TBI in older adults.

Defining the representativeness heuristic in trauma triage: A retrospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Under-triage of severely injured patients presenting to non-trauma centers (failure to transfer to a trauma center) remains problematic despite quality improvement efforts. Insights from the behavioral science literature suggest that physician heuristics (intuitive judgments), and in particular the representativeness heuristic (pattern recognition), may contribute to under-triage. However, little is known about how the representativeness heuristic is instantiated in practice.

METHODS

A multi-disciplinary group of experts identified candidate characteristics of "representative" severe trauma cases (e.g., hypotension). We then reviewed the charts of patients with moderate-to-severe injuries who presented to nine non-trauma centers in western Pennsylvania from 2010-2014 to assess the association between the presence of those characteristics and triage decisions. We tested bivariate associations using χ2 and Fisher's Exact method and multivariate associations using random effects logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 235,605 injured patients with 3,199 patients (1%) having moderate-to-severe injuries. Patients had a median age of 78 years (SD 20.1) and mean Injury Severity Score of 10.9 (SD 3.3). Only 759 of these patients (24%) were transferred to a trauma center as recommended by the American College of Surgeons clinical practice guidelines. Representative characteristics occurred in 704 patients (22%). The adjusted odds of transfer were higher in the presence of representative characteristics compared to when they were absent (aOR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.4-2.0, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most moderate-to-severely injured patients present without the characteristics representative of severe trauma. Presence of these characteristics is associated with appropriate transfer, suggesting that modifying physicians' heuristics in trauma may improve triage patterns.

Enduring Neuroprotective Effect of Subacute Neural Stem Cell Transplantation After Penetrating TBI

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the largest cause of death and disability of persons under 45 years old, worldwide. Independent of the distribution, outcomes such as disability are associated with huge societal costs. The heterogeneity of TBI and its complicated biological response have helped clarify the limitations of current pharmacological approaches to TBI management. Five decades of effort have made some strides in reducing TBI mortality but little progress has been made to mitigate TBI-induced disability. Lessons learned from the failure of numerous randomized clinical trials and the inability to scale up results from single center clinical trials with neuroprotective agents led to the formation of organizations such as the Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials (NETT) Network, and international collaborative comparative effectiveness research (CER) to re-orient TBI clinical research. With initiatives such as TRACK-TBI, generating rich and comprehensive human datasets with demographic, clinical, genomic, proteomic, imaging, and detailed outcome data across multiple time points has become the focus of the field in the United States (US). In addition, government institutions such as the US Department of Defense are investing in groups such as Operation Brain Trauma Therapy (OBTT), a multicenter, pre-clinical drug-screening consortium to address the barriers in translation. The consensus from such efforts including "The Lancet Neurology Commission" and current literature is that unmitigated cell death processes, incomplete debris clearance, aberrant neurotoxic immune, and glia cell response induce progressive tissue loss and spatiotemporal magnification of primary TBI. Our analysis suggests that the focus of neuroprotection research needs to shift from protecting dying and injured neurons at acute time points to modulating the aberrant glial response in sub-acute and chronic time points. One unexpected agent with neuroprotective properties that shows promise is transplantation of neural stem cells. In this review we present (i) a short survey of TBI epidemiology and summary of current care, (ii) findings of past neuroprotective clinical trials and possible reasons for failure based upon insights from human and preclinical TBI pathophysiology studies, including our group's inflammation-centered approach, (iii) the unmet need of TBI and unproven treatments and lastly, (iv) present evidence to support the rationale for sub-acute neural stem cell therapy to mediate enduring neuroprotection.