ISS alone, is not sufficient to correctly assign patients post-hoc to trauma team requirement

$\bf Purpose$ An injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 16 alone, is commonly used post hoc to define the correct activation of a trauma team. However, abnormal vital functions and the requirement of life-saving procedures may also have a role in defining trauma team requirement post hoc. The aim of this study was to describe their prevalence and mortality in severely injured patients and to estimate their potential additional value in the definition of trauma team requirement as compared to the definition based on ISS alone. $\bf Methods$ Retrospective analysis of a trauma registry including patients with trauma team activation from the years 2009 until 2015, who were 16 years of age or older and were brought to the trauma center directly from the scene. Patients were divided into a group with an ISS ≥ 16 vs. ISS < 16. For analysis a predefined list of abnormal vital functions and life-saving interventions was used. $\bf Results$ 58,723 patients were included in the study ($\it N$ = 32,653 with ISS ≥ 16; ($\it N$ = 26,070 with ISS < 16). From the total number of patients that required life-saving procedures or presented with abnormal vital functions 29.1% were found in the ISS < 16 group. From the ISS < 16 group, 36.7% of patients required life-saving procedures or presented with abnormal vital signs. The mortality of those was 8.1%. $\bf Conclusions$ Defining the true requirement of trauma team activation post hoc by using ISS ≥ 16 alone does miss a considerable number of subjects who require life-saving interventions or present with abnormal vital functions. Therefore, life-saving interventions and abnormal vital functions should be included in the definitions for trauma team requirement. Further studies have to evaluate, which life-saving procedures and abnormal vital functions are most relevant

Mortality in severely injured patients

$\bf Background$ Most trauma patients admitted to the hospital alive and die later on, decease during the initial care in the emergency department or the intensive care unit (ICU). However, a number of patients pass away after having been discharged from the ICU during the initial hospital stay. On first sight these cases could be seen as “failure to rescue” of potentially salvageable patients. A low rate of such patients might be a potential indicator of quality for trauma care on ICUs and surgical wards. $\bf Methods$ Retrospective analysis of the TraumaRegister DGU® with data from 2015 to 2017. Patients that died during the initial ICU stay were compared to those who were discharged from the initial ICU stay for at least 24 h but died later on. $\bf Results$ A total of 82,313 trauma patients were included in the TraumaRegister DGU®. In total, 6576 patients (8.0%) died during their hospital stay. Out of those, 5481 were admitted to the ICU alive and 972 patients (17.7%) were discharged from ICU and died later on. Those were older (mean age: 77 vs. 68 years), less severely injured (mean ISS: 23.1 vs. 30.0 points) and had a longer mean ICU length of stay (10 vs. 6 days). A limitation of life-sustaining therapy due to a documented living will was present in 46.1% of all patients who died during their initial ICU stay and in 59.9% of patients who died after discharge from their initial ICU stay. $\bf Conclusions$ 17.7% of all non-surviving severely injured trauma patients died within the hospital after discharge from their initial ICU treatment. Their death can partially be explained by a limitation of therapy due to a living will. In conclusion, the rate of such late deaths may partially represent patients that died of potentially avoidable or treatable complications

Yes- mind the gap!

We totally agree with Deana and Colleagues that missing intermediate care 1) might be an explanation for unexpected unfavorable outcome and 2) strengthening of intermediate care has the potential to lower this high rate of unfavorable outcome after ICU discharge. Yes- mind the gap