Demographic patterns and outcomes of patients in level I trauma centers in three international trauma systems

Introduction: Trauma systems were developed to improve the care for the injured. The designation and elements comprising these systems vary across countries. In this study, we have compared the demographic patterns and patient outcomes of Level I trauma centers in three international trauma systems. Methods: International multicenter prospective trauma registry-based study, performed in the University Medical Center Utrecht (UMCU), Utrecht, the Netherlands, John Hunter Hospital (JHH), Newcastle, Australia, and Harborview Medical Center (HMC), Seattle, the United States. Inclusion: patients =18 years, admitted in 2012, registered in the institutional trauma registry. Results: In UMCU, JHH, and HMC, respectively, 955, 1146, and 4049 patients met the inclusion criteria of which 300, 412, and 1375 patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15. Mean ISS was higher in JHH (13.5; p < 0.001) and HMC (13.4; p < 0.001) compared to UMCU (11.7). Unadjusted mortality: UMCU = 6.5 %, JHH = 3.6 %, and HMC = 4.8 %. Adjusted odds of death: JHH = 0.498 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.303-0.818] and HMC = 0.473 (95 % CI 0.325-0.690) compared to UMCU. HMC compared to JHH was 1.002 (95 % CI 0.664-1.514). Odds of death patients ISS > 15: JHH = 0.507 (95 % CI 0.300-0.857) and HMC = 0.451 (95 % CI 0.297-0.683) compared to UMCU. HMC = 0.931 (95 % CI 0.608-1.425) compared to JHH. TRISS analysis: UMCU: Ws = 0.787, Z = 1.31, M = 0.87; JHH, Ws = 3.583, Z = 6.7, M = 0.89; HMC, Ws = 3.902, Z = 14.6, M = 0.84. Conclusion: This study demonstrated substantial differences across centers in patient characteristics and mortality, mainly of neurological cause. Future research must investigate whether the outcome differences remain with nonfatal and long-term outcomes. Furthermore, we must focus on the development of a more valid method to compare systems

Epidemiology of combined clavicle and rib fractures:a systematic review

Purpose The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of the incidence of combined clavicle and rib fractures and the association between these two injuries. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases on the 14(th) of August 2020. Outcome measures were incidence, hospital length of stay (HLOS), intensive care unit admission and length of stay (ILOS), duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV), mortality, chest tube duration, Constant-Murley score, union and complications. Results Seven studies with a total of 71,572 patients were included, comprising five studies on epidemiology and two studies on treatment. Among blunt chest trauma patients, 18.6% had concomitant clavicle and rib fractures. The incidence of rib fractures in polytrauma patients with clavicle fractures was 56-60.6% versus 29% in patients without clavicle fractures. Vice versa, 14-18.8% of patients with multiple rib fractures had concomitant clavicle fractures compared to 7.1% in patients without multiple rib fractures. One study reported no complications after fixation of both injuries. Another study on treatment, reported shorter ILOS and less complications among operatively versus conservatively treated patients (5.4 +/- 1.5 versus 21 +/- 13.6 days). Conclusion Clavicle fractures and rib fractures are closely related in polytrauma patients and almost a fifth of all blunt chest trauma patients sustain both injuries. Definitive conclusions could not be drawn on treatment of the combined injury. Future research should further investigate indications and benefits of operative treatment of this injury

The impact of regionalized trauma care on the distribution of severely injured patients in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: Twenty years ago, an inclusive trauma system was implemented in the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to evaluate the impact of structured trauma care on the concentration of severely injured patients over time. METHODS: All severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score [ISS] ≥ 16) documented in the Dutch Trauma Registry (DTR) in the calendar period 2008–2018 were included for analysis. We compared severely injured patients, with and without severe neurotrauma, directly brought to trauma centers (TC) and non-trauma centers (NTC). The proportion of patients being directly transported to a trauma center was determined, as was the total Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), and ISS. RESULTS: The documented number of severely injured patients increased from 2350 in 2008 to 4694 in 2018. During this period, on average, 70% of these patients were directly admitted to a TC (range 63–74%). Patients without severe neurotrauma had a lower chance of being brought to a TC compared to those with severe neurotrauma. Patients directly presented to a TC were more severely injured, reflected by a higher total AIS and ISS, than those directly transported to a NTC. CONCLUSION: Since the introduction of a well-organized trauma system in the Netherlands, trauma care has become progressively centralized, with more severely injured patients being directly presented to a TC. However, still 30% of these patients is initially brought to a NTC. Future research should focus on improving pre-hospital triage to facilitate swift transfer of the right patient to the right hospital

Evaluation of the Berlin polytrauma definition:A Dutch nationwide observational study

BACKGROUND The Berlin polytrauma definition (BPD) was established to identify multiple injury patients with a high risk of mortality. The definition includes injuries with an Abbreviated Injury Scale score of >= 3 in >= 2 body regions (2AIS >= 3) combined with the presence of >= 1 physiological risk factors (PRFs). The PRFs are based on age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, acidosis, and coagulopathy at specific cutoff values. This study evaluates and compares the BPD with two other multiple injury definitions used to identify patients with high resource utilization and mortality risk, using data from the Dutch National Trauma Register (DNTR). METHODS The evaluation was performed based on 2015 to 2018 DNTR data. First, patient characteristics for 2AIS >= 3, Injury Severity Score (ISS) of >= 16, and BPD patients were compared. Second, the PRFs prevalence and odds ratios of mortality for 2AIS >= 3 patients were compared with those from the Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Unfallchirurgie Trauma Register. Subsequently, the association between PRF and mortality was assessed for 2AIS >= 3-DNTR patients and compared with those with an ISS of >= 16. RESULTS The DNTR recorded 300,649 acute trauma admissions. A total of 15,711 patients sustained an ISS of >= 16, and 6,263 patients had suffered a 2AIS >= 3 injury. All individual PRFs were associated with a mortality of >30% in 2AIS >= 3-DNTR patients. The increase in PRFs was associated with a significant increase in mortality for both 2AIS >= 3 and ISS >= 16 patients. A total of 4,264 patients met the BPDs criteria. Overall mortality (27.2%), intensive care unit admission (71.2%), and length of stay were the highest for the BPD group. CONCLUSION This study confirms that the BPD identifies high-risk patients in a population-based registry. The addition of PRFs to the anatomical injury scores improves the identification of severely injured patients with a high risk of mortality. Compared with the ISS >= 16 and 2AIS >= 3 multiple injury definitions, the BPD showed to improve the accuracy of capturing patients with a high medical resource need and mortality rate

Incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome and associated mortality in a polytrauma population

Background: The incidence of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has decreased in the last decade by improvement in trauma and critical care. However, it still remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality. This study investigated the current incidence and mortality of ARDS in polytrauma patients. Methods: A 4.5-year prospective study included consecutive trauma patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center intensive care unit (ICU). Isolated head injuries, drowning, asphyxiation, burns, and deaths <48 hours were excluded. Demographics, Injury Severity Score (ISS), physiologic parameters, resuscitation parameters, Denver Multiple Organ Failure scores, and ARDS data according to Berlin criteria were prospectively collected. Data are presented as median (IQR), and p<0.05 was considered significant. Results: 241 patients were included. The median age was 45 (27-59) years, 178 (74%) were male, the ISS was 29 (22-36), and 232 (96%) patients had blunt injuries. Thirty-one patients (13%) died. Fifteen patients (6%) developed ARDS. The median time to ARDS onset was 3 (2-5) days after injury. The median duration of ARDS was 2.5 (1-3.5) days. All patients with ARDS were male compared with 61% of non-ARDS patients (p=0.003). Patients who developed ARDS had higher ISS (30 vs. 25, p=0.01), lower Partial Pressure of Oxygen in arterial blood (PaO2) both in the emergency department and ICU, and higher Partial Pressure of Carbon Dioxide in arterial blood (PaCo2) in the ICU. Patients with ARDS needed more crystalloids <24 hours (8.7 vs. 6.8 L, p=0.03), received more fresh frozen plasma <24 hours (3 vs. 0 U, p=0.04), and more platelet <8 hours and <24 hours. Further, they stayed longer on the ventilator (11 vs. 2 days, p<0.001), longer in the ICU (12 vs. 3 days, p<0.001), and in the hospital (33 vs. 15 days, p=0.004). Patients with ARDS developed more often multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (40% vs. 3%, p<0.001) and died more often (20% vs. 3%, p=0.01). Only one patient with ARDS (7%) died of ARDS. Discussion: In this polytrauma population mortality was predominantly caused by brain injury. The incidence of ARDS was low; its presentation was only early onset, during a short time period, and accompanied by low mortality. Level of evidence: Level III

Developing the Fourth Evaluation Dimension : A Protocol for Evaluation of Video From the Patient’s Perspective During Major Incident Exercises

Objective: Presently used evaluation techniques rely on 3 traditional dimensions: reports from observers, registration system data, and observational cameras. Some of these techniques are observer-dependent and are not reproducible for a second review. This proof-of-concept study aimed to test the feasibility of extending evaluation to a fourth dimension, the patient’s perspective. Methods: Footage was obtained during a large, full-scale hospital trauma drill. Two mock victims were equipped with point-of-view cameras filming from the patient’s head. Based on the Major Incident Hospital’s first experience during the drill, a protocol was developed for a prospective, standardized method to evaluate a hospital’s major incident response from the patient’s perspective. The protocol was then tested in a second drill for its feasibility. Results: New insights were gained after review of the footage. The traditional observer missed some of the evaluation points, which were seen on the point-of-view cameras. The information gained from the patient’s perspective proved to be implementable into the designed protocol. Conclusion: Use of point-of-view camera recordings from a mock patient’s perspective is a valuable addition to traditional evaluation of trauma drills and trauma care. Protocols should be designed to optimize and objectify judgement of such footage. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2017;0:1-6)