Letter to the Editor regarding the article: "identifying pre-hospital factors associated with outcome for major trauma patients in a regional trauma network: An exploratory study"

The aim of this Letter to the Editor was to report some methodological shortcomings in a recently published article. Issues regarding missing values and overfitting are mentioned. First, Complete Case (CC) analysis was used instead of an imputation method. Second, there was a high chance of overfitting and lack of model validation. In conclusion, the results of this study should be interpret with caution and further research is necessary

The volume-outcome relationship among severely injured patients admitted to English major trauma centres : a registry study

Background Many countries have centralized and dedicated trauma centres with high volumes of trauma patients. However, the volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15) remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the association between hospital volume and outcomes in Major Trauma Centres (MTCs). Methods A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted using the Trauma Audit and Research Network (TARN) consisting of all English Major Trauma Centres (MTCs). Severely injured patients (ISS > 15) admitted to a MTC between 2013 and 2016 were included. The effect of hospital volume on outcome was analysed with random effects logistic regression models with a random intercept for centre and was tested for nonlinearity. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Results A total of 47,157 severely injured patients from 28 MTCs were included in this study. Hospital volume varied from 69 to 781 severely injured patients per year. There were small between-centre differences in mortality after adjusting for important demographic and injury severity characteristics (adjusted 95% odds ratio range: 0.99–1.01). Hospital volume was found to be linear and not associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.02 per 10 patients, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68–1.54, p = 0.92). Conclusions Despite the large variation in volume of the included MTCs, no relationship between hospital volume and outcome of severely injured patients was found. These results suggest that centres with similar structure and processes of care can achieve comparable outcomes in severely injured patients despite the number of severely injured patients they treat

Identifying trauma patients with benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers

Background Prehospital triage protocols typically try to select patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 for direct transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. However, ISS does not necessarily discriminate between patients who benefit from immediate care at Level-1 trauma centers. The aim of this study was to assess which patients benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. Methods We used the American National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), a retrospective observational cohort. All adult patients (ISS > 3) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Patients who were self-presenting or had isolated limb injury were excluded. We used logistic regression to assess the association of direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers with in-hospital mortality adjusted for clinically relevant confounders. We used this model to define benefit as predicted probability of mortality associated with transportation to a non-Level-1 trauma center minus predicted probability associated with transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. We used a threshold of 1% as absolute benefit. Potential interaction terms with transportation to Level-1 trauma centers were included in a penalized logistic regression model to study which patients benefit. Results We included 388,845 trauma patients from 232 Level-1 centers and 429 Level-2/3 centers. A small beneficial effect was found for direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers (adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.92-0.99) which disappeared when comparing Level-1 and 2 versus Level-3 trauma centers. In the risk approach, predicted benefit ranged between 0 and 1%. When allowing for interactions, 7% of the patients (n = 27,753) had more than 1% absolute benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. These patients had higher AIS Head and Thorax scores, lower GCS and lower SBP. A quarter of the patients with ISS > 15 were predicted to benefit from transportation to Level-1 centers (n = 26,522, 22%). Conclusions Benefit of transportation to a Level-1 trauma centers is quite heterogeneous across patients and the difference between Level-1 and Level-2 trauma centers is small. In particular, patients with head injury and signs of shock may benefit from care in a Level-1 trauma center. Future prehospital triage models should incorporate more complete risk profiles.Development and application of statistical models for medical scientific researchAnalysis and support of clinical decision makin

The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2018 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. BACKGROUND The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients remains under debate and this has consequences for the designation of trauma centers. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients. METHODS Six electronic databases were searched from 1980 up to January 30, 2018, to identify studies that describe the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients (preferably Injury Severity Score above 15). Selection of relevant studies, data extraction, and critical appraisal of the methodological quality were performed by two independent reviewers. Pooled adjusted and unadjusted estimates of the effect of volume on in-hospital mortality, only in study populations with Injury Severity Score greater than 15, were calculated with a random-effects meta-analysis. A mixed effects linear regression model was used to assess hospital volume as continuous parameter. RESULTS Eighteen observational cohort studies were included. The majority (13 [72%] of 18) reported an association between higher hospital or surgeon volume and lower mortality rate. Overall, the quality of the included studies was reasonable, with insufficient adjustment as one of the most common limitations. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 222,418 patients. High hospital volume (>240 admitted severely injured patients per year) was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.94). Four studies were included in the regression model, providing a beta of-0.17 per 10 patients (95% CI,-0.27 to-0.07). There was no clear association between surgeon volume and mortality rates based on three available studies. CONCLUSION Our systematic overview of the literature reveals a modest association between high-volume centers and lower mortality in severely injured patients, suggesting that designation of high-volume centers might improve outcomes among severely injured patients

Tracheal intubation in traumatic brain injury: a multicentre prospective observational study

BackgroundWe aimed to study the associations between pre- and in-hospital tracheal intubation and outcomes in traumatic brain injury (TBI), and whether the association varied according to injury severity.MethodsData from the international prospective pan-European cohort study, Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research for TBI (CENTER-TBI), were used (n=4509). For prehospital intubation, we excluded self-presenters. For in-hospital intubation, patients whose tracheas were intubated on-scene were excluded. The association between intubation and outcome was analysed with ordinal regression with adjustment for the International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in TBI variables and extracranial injury. We assessed whether the effect of intubation varied by injury severity by testing the added value of an interaction term with likelihood ratio tests.ResultsIn the prehospital analysis, 890/3736 (24%) patients had their tracheas intubated at scene. In the in-hospital analysis, 460/2930 (16%) patients had their tracheas intubated in the emergency department. There was no adjusted overall effect on functional outcome of prehospital intubation (odds ratio=1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.79–1.28; P=0.96), and the adjusted overall effect of in-hospital intubation was not significant (odds ratio=0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.65–1.13; P=0.28). However, prehospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with higher thorax and abdominal Abbreviated Injury Scale scores (P=0.009 and P=0.02, respectively), whereas in-hospital intubation was associated with better outcome in patients with lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (P=0.01): in-hospital intubation was associated with better functional outcome in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores of 10 or lower.ConclusionThe benefits and harms of tracheal intubation should be carefully evaluated in patients with TBI to optimise benefit. This study suggests that extracranial injury should influence the decision in the prehospital setting, and level of consciousness in the in-hospital setting.Clinical trial registrationNCT02210221.    </p

Variation in the practice of tracheal intubation in Europe after traumatic brain injury: a prospective cohort study

Traumatic brain injury patients frequently undergo tracheal intubation. We aimed to assess current intubation practice in Europe and identify variation in practice. We analysed data from patients with traumatic brain injury included in the prospective cohort study collaborative European neurotrauma effectiveness research in traumatic brain injury (CENTER-TBI) in 45 centres in 16 European countries. We included patients who were transported to hospital by emergency medical services. We used mixed-effects multinomial regression to quantify the effects on pre-hospital or in-hospital tracheal intubation of the following: patient characteristics; injury characteristics; centre; and trauma system characteristics. A total of 3843 patients were included. Of these, 1322 (34%) had their tracheas intubated; 839 (22%) pre-hospital and 483 (13%) in-hospital. The fit of the model with only patient characteristics predicting intubation was good (Nagelkerke R2 64%). The probability of tracheal intubation increased with the following: younger age; lower pre-hospital or emergency department GCS; higher abbreviated injury scale scores (head and neck, thorax and chest, face or abdomen abbreviated injury score); and one or more unreactive pupils. The adjusted median odds ratio for intubation between two randomly chosen centres was 3.1 (95%CI 2.1-4.3) for pre-hospital intubation, and 2.7 (95%CI 1.9-3.5) for in-hospital intubation. Furthermore, the presence of an anaesthetist was independently associated with more pre-hospital intubation (OR 2.9, 95%CI 1.3-6.6), in contrast to the presence of ambulance personnel who are allowed to intubate (OR 0.5, 95%CI 0.3-0.8). In conclusion, patient and injury characteristics are key drivers of tracheal intubation. Between-centre differences were also substantial. Further studies are needed to improve the evidence base supporting recommendations for tracheal intubation

The volume-outcome relationship for hip fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 2,023,469 patients

Background and purpose — It has been hypothesized that hospitals and surgeons with high caseloads of hip fracture patients have better outcomes, but empirical studies have reported contradictory results. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the volume–outcome relationship among patients with hip fracture patients. Methods — A search of different databases was performed up to February 2018. Selection of relevant studies, data extraction, and critical appraisal of the methodological quality was performed by 2 independent reviewers. A random-effects meta-analysis using studies with comparative cut-offs was performed to estimate the effect of hospital and surgeon volume on outcome, defined as in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications. Results — 24 studies comprising 2,023,469 patients were included. Overall, the quality was reasonable. 11 studies reported better health outcomes in high-volume centers and 2 studies reported better health outcomes in low-volume centers. In the meta-analysis of 11 studies there was a statistically non-significant association between higher hospital volume and both lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73–1.04) and fewer postoperative complications (aOR 0.87, CI 0.75– 1.02). Four studies on surgeon volume were included in the meta-analysis and showed a minor association between higher surgeon volume and in-hospital mortality (aOR 0.92, CI 0.76–1.12). Interpretation — This systematic review and metaanalysis did not find an evident effect of hospital or surgeon volume on health outcomes. Future research without volume cut-offs is needed to examine whether a true volume–outcome relationship exists

The relationship between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality of severely injured patients in Dutch level-1 trauma centers

Centralization of trauma centers leads to a higher hospital volume of severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15), but the effect of volume on outcome remains unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the association between hospital volume of severely injured patients and in-hospital mortality in Dutch Level-1 trauma centers. A retrospective observational cohort study was performed using the Dutch trauma registry. All severely injured adults (ISS > 15) admitted to a Level-1 trauma center between 2015 and 2018 were included. The effect of hospital volume on in-hospital mortality was analyzed with random effects logistic regression models with a random intercept for Level-1 trauma center, adjusted for important demographic and injury characteristics. A total of 11,917 severely injured patients from 13 Dutch Level-1 trauma centers was included in this study. Hospital volume varied from 120 to 410 severely injured patients per year. Observed mortality rates varied between 12% and 24% per center. After case-mix correction, no statistically significant differences between low- and high-volume centers were demonstrated (adjusted odds ratio 0.97 per 50 extra patients per year, 95% Confidence Interval 0.90-1.04, p = 0.44). The variation in hospital volume of the included Level-1 trauma centers was not associated with the outcome of severely injured patients. Our results suggest that well-organized trauma centers with a similar organization of care could potentially achieve comparable outcomes.Development and application of statistical models for medical scientific researc

The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The volume-outcome relationship in severely injured patients remains under debate and this has consequences for the designation of trauma centers. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients. METHODS Six electronic databases were searched from 1980 up to January 30, 2018, to identify studies that describe the relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and health outcomes in severely injured patients (preferably Injury Severity Score above 15). Selection of relevant studies, data extraction, and critical appraisal of the methodological quality were performed by two independent reviewers. Pooled adjusted and unadjusted estimates of the effect of volume on in-hospital mortality, only in study populations with Injury Severity Score greater than 15, were calculated with a random-effects meta-analysis. A mixed effects linear regression model was used to assess hospital volume as continuous parameter. RESULTS Eighteen observational cohort studies were included. The majority (13 [72%] of 18) reported an association between higher hospital or surgeon volume and lower mortality rate. Overall, the quality of the included studies was reasonable, with insufficient adjustment as one of the most common limitations. Eight studies were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 222,418 patients. High hospital volume (>240 admitted severely injured patients per year) was associated with a lower risk of mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.94). Four studies were included in the regression model, providing a beta of-0.17 per 10 patients (95% CI,-0.27 to-0.07). There was no clear association between surgeon volume and mortality rates based on three available studies. CONCLUSION Our systematic overview of the literature reveals a modest association between high-volume centers and lower mortality in severely injured patients, suggesting that designation of high-volume centers might improve outcomes among severely injured patients

The burden of traumatic brain injury from low-energy falls among patients from 18 countries in the CENTER-TBI Registry: A comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an important global public health burden, where those injured by high-energy transfer (e.g., road traffic collisions) are assumed to have more severe injury and are prioritised by emergency medical service trauma triage tools. However recent studies suggest an increasing TBI disease burden in older people injured through low-energy falls. We aimed to assess the prevalence of low-energy falls among patients presenting to hospital with TBI, and to compare their characteristics, care pathways, and outcomes to TBI caused by high-energy trauma. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a comparative cohort study utilising the CENTER-TBI (Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in TBI) Registry, which recorded patient demographics, injury, care pathway, and acute care outcome data in 56 acute trauma receiving hospitals across 18 countries (17 countries in Europe and Israel). Patients presenting with TBI and indications for computed tomography (CT) brain scan between 2014 to 2018 were purposively sampled. The main study outcomes were (i) the prevalence of low-energy falls causing TBI within the overall cohort and (ii) comparisons of TBI patients injured by low-energy falls to TBI patients injured by high-energy transfer-in terms of demographic and injury characteristics, care pathways, and hospital mortality. In total, 22,782 eligible patients were enrolled, and study outcomes were analysed for 21,681 TBI patients with known injury mechanism; 40% (95% CI 39% to 41%) (8,622/21,681) of patients with TBI were injured by low-energy falls. Compared to 13,059 patients injured by high-energy transfer (HE cohort), the those injured through low-energy falls (LE cohort) were older (LE cohort, median 74 [IQR 56 to 84] years, versus HE cohort, median 42 [IQR 25 to 60] years; p < 0.001), more often female (LE cohort, 50% [95% CI 48% to 51%], versus HE cohort, 32% [95% CI 31% to 34%]; p < 0.001), more frequently taking pre-injury anticoagulants or/and platelet aggregation inhibitors (LE cohort, 44% [95% CI 42% to 45%], versus HE cohort, 13% [95% CI 11% to 14%]; p < 0.001), and less often presenting with moderately or severely impaired conscious level (LE cohort, 7.8% [95% CI 5.6% to 9.8%], versus HE cohort, 10% [95% CI 8.7% to 12%]; p < 0.001), but had similar in-hospital mortality (LE cohort, 6.3% [95% CI 4.2% to 8.3%], versus HE cohort, 7.0% [95% CI 5.3% to 8.6%]; p = 0.83). The CT brain scan traumatic abnormality rate was 3% lower in the LE cohort (LE cohort, 29% [95% CI 27% to 31%], versus HE cohort, 32% [95% CI 31% to 34%]; p < 0.001); individuals in the LE cohort were 50% less likely to receive critical care (LE cohort, 12% [95% CI 9.5% to 13%], versus HE cohort, 24% [95% CI 23% to 26%]; p < 0.001) or emergency interventions (LE cohort, 7.5% [95% CI 5.4% to 9.5%], versus HE cohort, 13% [95% CI 12% to 15%]; p < 0.001) than patients injured by high-energy transfer. The purposive sampling strategy and censorship of patient outcomes beyond hospital discharge are the main study limitations. CONCLUSIONS: We observed that patients sustaining TBI from low-energy falls are an important component of the TBI disease burden and a distinct demographic cohort; further, our findings suggest that energy transfer may not predict intracranial injury or acute care mortality in patients with TBI presenting to hospital. This suggests that factors beyond energy transfer level may be more relevant to prehospital and emergency department TBI triage in older people. A specific focus to improve prevention and care for patients sustaining TBI from low-energy falls is required.CENTER-TBI was supported by the European Union 7th Framework program (EC grant 602150), recipient A.I.R. Maas. Additional funding was obtained from the Hannelore Kohl Stiftung (Germany) - recipient A.I.R. Maas, from OneMind (USA) - recipient A.I.R. Maas and from Integra LifeSciences Corporation (USA) - recipient A.I.R. Maas. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript